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

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
>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, 2 Jan 2007 16:34:54 -0600
>
>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.

Hi Ian

Sure, I can appreciate that. But we are here to discuss Robert Pirsig's MOQ, 
are we not? Wouldn't it be prudent to count him as an authority?

Beyond that, there seems to be a general lack of appreciation (on some 
contributor's parts) for the difficulty of writing a book. You're never 
going to get it right. Ever. No matter how long a labor, it can always be 
better.

>
>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.

Armchair quarterbacking is related to kibbitzing as Robert Pirsig defines it 
in the intro to LILA'S CHILD. It is a person (usually male) who despite a 
complete lack of talent on their part are nonetheless confident in the 
superiority of their own ability and will proclaim loudly to anyone within 
earshot that they could do so much better than the jokester who is actually 
out there playing the game.

I do not feel a need to get into specifics though.

>
>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 have no problem with your posts. Except...

>
>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.

Right. And that's good, I agree. It would be nice to have a better 
definition of the intellectual level too. And I count Bodvar as a dear 
friend. I've looked into his SOLAQI idea over and over again. In a certain 
context it makes sense. Not from a larger more expansive MOQ context, 
however. It is not the MOQ as Robert Pirsig envisions, or so I gather.

>
>Regards
>Ian

And to you as well,

Dan

>
>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/
> >
>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/