[MD] Metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Guys and dolls! 

9 Jan. :

Steve to Andre:
> Stick around, or just check the archives. Bo indeed thinks that Pirsig
> does not understand the MOQ which is absurd if the MOQ is the
> philosophy of Robert M Pirsig.
 
Andre:
> Hi Steve, I agree in the sense that Bodvar has stated that Mr. Pirsig
> has 'watered down' the MoQ, has 'chickened out' to use a common
> phrase, to make it more 'acceptable'  or palatable to (Western)
> academia, for example by incorporating James' philosophy.

Steve makes it sound as if the MOQ (as presented in LILA) is 
unambiguous and that Pirsig a person with unswerving opinions on it, 
but the fact is that he has shifted considerably from the early 
comments on the intellectual level as mind (the thinking intellect) to 
the Paul Turner letter where he forcefully rejects that interpretation 
and speaks about the Greeks which is SOM and exactly it But Steve 
refuses to look into this Galilean telescope..    

> And I do intend to stay around, though of late, I must admit, I do
> have a bit of a time convincing myself of the quality of this.
> 
> Bodvar sees revolution in the MoQ. This is an attitude and conviction.
> To be honest ( as I always try to be) I do not share this fanaticism.
> I think my history is simply different to Bodvar's. I am not going to
> defend these parts of him. His static patterns are after
> something...DQ ( paraphrasing Pirsig in LILA about Lila).

If I sound fanatic so be it, if I let the MOQ develop in an academical 
direction it's encapsuled by SOM and it's back is broken. ZAMM 
speaks about Plato's hatred of the Sophists and without any 
comparison there are more immoral  persons than Steve, DMB, Paul 
(Turner in his time) but if these have their ways the first glimpse of 
something that surpasses SOM will disappear without a trace. The 
McWatt treatise is useless because its presentation of the intellectual 
level is faulty and everything hinges on intellect=SOM..  
 
> I do believe though that the MoQ has within itself the seeds of a
> dramatic and radical change. Not only for the individual, but also on
> a broader cultural level...it is so rich with innovation and creative
> power.

You bet it has and I can't understand how you, Andre, can falter after 
your fantastic insight  the other day. You have had your "moon 
landing" and seen the true context, the SOM as a mere static level - a 
planet, not IT ALL like the ancients believed.

Bodvar 








> 
> I am not the type to shout from the rooftops. I rather like Pirsig's
> heart, head and hands approach as outlined in ZMM. Especially
> considering the context within which I find myself now, living and
> working in China. One achieves only counter measures when one shouts
> from the rooftops here...or anywhere else really.
> 
> Steve:
> Pirsig has responded to Bo's SOL thesis several times and told him
> that SOL is not what he means by the intellectual level. Bo is
> frustrated that Pirsig does not recognize "the true MOQ" when he is
> presented with it by Bo.
> 
> Andre:
> I am aware of this Steve, aware of the annotations specifically
> related to Bodvar's ( and Platt's) interpretations regarding the
> intellectual level and LILA as a document. To be a bit more accurate
> though, Pirsig did say that if it (the SOL) has any value, it will
> percolate to the top.
> 
> If this is not an inverse of Reaganism I don't know what is.
> 
> As I concluded before, these are points to ponder...in the end one has
> to follow one's source ...and this simply depends upon the extent to
> which one is receptive to this... follow one's dharma.
> 
> As the Zen Buddhist saying goes: When you see the Buddha down the
> street, kill him.
> 
> Kind regards
> Andre
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
>