[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[ian glendinning]

Dan / Marsha, OK I'll bite ...

Rearrange / re-state for who ?
The benefit of future mankind - wider than the already comfortable
readership of ZMM / Lila. (Even those who do read them and find their
own comfort in their value struggle to agree on significant pragmatic
interpretation.)

Respect for whom ? The Sage ? Pirsig ?
His undoubted wisdom and original authorship commands genuine respect,
but does not exempt his own statements of ideas from their
contingency, and potential enhancement by dialogue. I'm here for the
dialogue, not respect for authority.

You'll have to explain "armchair quarterbacking" for non-US-Football
people. To be fair, I think you should also aim the generalised
criticisms at specific issues with specific individuals.

For my own part

I have no interest in defining DQ, the whole point is it is ineffable,
like the boundaries to any belief system. (In fact I have very little
interest in definitions, except where it involves a distinction
already embodied in the MoQ, and even then only temporarily, to
enhance my own understanding. Selfish I know)

I have no interest in complicating the essential simplicity of the MoQ
itself ... in fact my only "revisionist" interest is in removing one
unnecessary complication or confusion between levels 3 and 4. (I'm
open to any suggestion that points out my error there, or request me
to further explain my problem with it.)

I never use the cheap trick of pasting Pirsig's words to rationalise
my own arguments. My approach is always to synthesise - bring in
alternative supportive material.

Regards
Ian

On 1/2/07, Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> >From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >Subject: Re: [MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction
> >Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:25:11 -0500
> >
> >
> >
> >Greetings many,
> >
> >Without the effort of the climb, or the hardship of the journey, you
> >seem to resent not having the perspective of the Sage.
>
> Hi Marsha
>
> Yeah, I kind of hinted at that when I asked Case when his next book was due
> to be published. He took it as a joke.
>
> I wasn't joking.
>
> Armchair quarterbacking seems a prime occupation for many contributors here.
> I guess it just boils down to respect, or lack of.
>
> >
> >You want to rearrange the levels for who???
>
> Exactly. The beauty of the MOQ lies in its simplicity yet many readers of
> LILA want to introduce more or less levels or even rearrange the levels and
> then they go on to define Dynamic Quality. And they wonder why they get
> accused of not reading the book in the first place, so they do a copy and
> paste job to impress everyone. I'm sorry but I am not impressed... at all.
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>
> Dan
>
>
> 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/
>