From: Johannes Volmert (jvolmert@student.uni-kassel.de)
Date: Sun Jan 18 2004 - 13:10:21 GMT
Hi Bo, All
Bo said:
It must have to do with my poor English (according to the
Squark).
JoVo:
No, it's not about your English, I guess. Your language competence, especially your vocabulary is better than mine, normally. It's more about grammatics, about syntax.
You should work out important sentences more thoroughly; consider them more like some mathematic formulation than like a literary document.
Yes, Yes, I know, I'm a comma-freak and I don't use them correctly. I'm still trying! :-)
Bo said:
Yes, I know that Pirsig says so, but in the same letter he also
says that his opinion no Papal Bull (he even adds that it might be
just "bull...") I admire him for such a generous uttering.
JoVo:
He said so, because he wishes people to think for themselves, in general and concerning his MoQ in specific. I never considered Pirsigs 'Lila' as a holy document or as untouchable annunciations. But you have to have good reasons to overthrow one or the other argument in Lila - that's why we are here. To exchange and to discuss!
Bo said:
Many speak about an 'intellect' that precedes the level, but all
other levels are identical with their respective value. Anyway, you
agreed that the Greek experience=the emergence of the
intellectual level, and as it also is the emergence of SOM ...you
affirm the SOLAQI.
JoVo:
I did not agree! At this point, I would have pointed to the logic of your deducing, but Paul have answered this already much better than I could have done. *
Bo said:
The Greeks didn't know any "intellectual level". They had
discovered a reality greater than the old mythological one,
something that becomes intellect's takeover from society in the
MOQ! But in one sense you are right: Once this new reality
settled down it crystallized everything in its form ...the SOM..
JoVo:
Your're right, Bo, that "The Greeks didn't know any "intellectual level". But I did not say, that they called it an intellectual level. Just read, what I had wrote: "...it would have been correct for them to view..."
But I agree largley on what you have said. 'The Greeks' did not only develop an efficient set of tools to look at the world, they also partly invoked a metaphysical imprint that later developed into what we would call a Subject-Object-Metaphysics and that is - in our understanding - flawed.
Bo said:
You speak of the MOQ and SOM as if their "patterns/terms" are
interchangeable (of the same level) but up above you agreed to
my thesis, ergo, intellectual patterns will remain somish till
kingdom comes, but as the MOQ is non-S/O it is beyond intellect..
JoVo:
I did not agree to you thesis. See above (*).
Bo said:
Right, the MOQ is from SOM. Platt called it "a SOM document"
something that provoked Pirsig's # 126 annotation (that Dan
pointed to) P. says that the MOQ employs SOM's value in the
same way that SOM employed social value, something that
strongly indicates that he regards the MOQ as beyond SOM.
JoVo:
That would obviously contradict his own remark where he says (footnote; P.Turner -letter):
"The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation
but some kind of other level is not clear to me. There is nothing in
the MOQ that I know of that leads to this conclusion."
I won't dig in all of Pirsigs sayings and annotations he ever made in whatever context. I don't have 'Lilas Child' but it looks as if I have to purchase it at least in electronic form. I have already looked at Dans website for that - and for the SOLAQI-collection. But till then, I stick to ZMM, Lila and his essays or also letters that have not been torn apart.
I have said that years ago at several occasions - e.g. when discussing with Struan, just before he left(for the first time) - and bring it now again to your attention:
I don't read Pirsigs books like a bible and not like one of the science- and math-books I have used during my studies. You can't do that! These books' intention was to entertain *and* to open peoples eyes. Therefore it is invalid to pick out any sentence and tell people that it supports your point of view. One has to be willing to see what Pirsig wishes to express; you have to 'see' the underlying structure. There will never ever be a literay or scientific document (verbal ones - with math that is different), that cannot be shredded by people like Struan - being very intelligent and willing to destroy. Which is of course a legal scientific approach.
I don't want to express that it is a 'wild-goose chase', a useless occupation, but it is necessary to include always a wider context, when trying to support an argument.
As far as I have have watched your postings, Bo, since I joined in '98, I see you, especially during the last three or four years, collecting anything what seems appropriate to support your SOLAQI-concept or -thesis. You tend to subordinate any kind of material to your concept and lately also Pirsigs books. I don't think that could be called plainly wrong - many people out there do so (on other subjects). But most of those are quite dogmatic, not very dynamic.
And being dynamic is what MOQ is primarily about, isn't it?
Bo said (in his PS.):
You asked for a short presentation of the "Subject/Object Logic
As Quality's Intellect" (SOLAQI) idea. The acronym sounds more
forbidding than it is, simply that the intellectual level is SOM.
There is a very good essay about written by Dan Glover to be
found on his site,
JoVo:
Dan did a nice job on collecting your postings on your SOLAQI-thesis and it gives indeed a valuable overview about it. But on the other hand side it is only a description of its development; it is not a coherent concept as I would jugde it.
It does not suffice my demand for being a discussible verbalization.
So long (I have to return to my diploma again),
with best Regards,
JoVo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 18 2004 - 13:12:52 GMT