[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[MarshaV]

Andre, 

What kind of pattern is 'shaming'?    


Marsha  







On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Bodvar to Platt:
> 
> I had not followed your debate with Arlo this far before my input, but
> yours have been a great show with your salient quotes and keen memory of where to find them.
> 
> Andre:
> I have followed this debate Bodvar but due to internet difficulties (trust China!)was unable to send a complete response...which has since disappeared (although I did put it in my 'Drafts' folder).
> 
> Platt had taken Mr. Pirsig's quote from Chapter 24 in LILA. It is a complex chapter that has to be read in a very detailed way. Early on we follow a very close scrutiny of the political battle science has had 'to free itself from domination by social morel codes...'. Mr. Pirsig, within the context of a 'subject-object metaphysics' calls this the 'intellectual level' but it must be understood that the MOQ uproots the intellectual source of this confusion'(this battle) and places this 'idea' (in this process of incorporatig and recognisig it for what it is, in its prope place namely: just another instance of intellectual patterns. As Mr. Pirsig says:[the MOQ's] intellect can support static patterns of society without fear of domination by carefully distinguishing those moral issues that are social-biological from those that are intellectual-social...'... and this includes the conventional subject-object pattern.
> 
> The crucial factor Mr. Pirsig addresses in this chapter are morals, Quality and not intellectual, social, biological or inorganic patterns. These are divisions that come later on. His main concern is the way through the 'forrest'is concentrating on Morality/Quality.
> 
> Seems to me you two are mistaking the tree for the forrest.
> 
> The particular analysis of this battle sets the MOQ's 'larger intellectual structure', as an example of the liberating root expansion of rationality (as the central endeavour of Phaedrus' quest in ZMM and continues in LILA) in its practical,truthful, empirical context.
> 
> 'These subject-object PATTERNS were never designed for the job of governing society. ( Notice Mr. Pirsig uses the expression 'governing' Bodvar! Not 'dominating', nothing like: society-is-evil-and must be created anew type thing, as you seem to imply...no: governing, guiding, correcting, leading).
> 
> 'It's this intellectual PATTERN of amoral 'objectivity' that is to blame for the social deterioration of America...' ( some of these quotes come from Chapter 24, and there are more).
> 
> So much for 'salient quotes' and 'keen memory'.You and Platt are suffering from the Cleveland Harbour Effect, and are totally unaware, it seems, what disservice you are both doing to the MOQ and the person and intellectual capacity of Mr. Pirsig himself. I can only find one word for this: SHAME(on you both)! You two are an absolute disgrace in the context of Mr. Pirsig's MOQ. To create your own interpretation ( as you two have) 'undermines the MOQ'. And, as Arlo correctly points out: this is fine but keep your interpretations as those of yourself and do not correct Mr. Pirsig's 'meaning' by your continuous raping of the quotes or the discussion at hand.
> 
> All this said of course in my humblest opinion! After all, who am I but a fleeting moment, a piece of dust in the wind (should I be so lucky) a dream of my previous life, stuck in my bardo (meaning I am really dead...or in the process of... ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___