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

Wed Jan 3 06:51:00 PST 2007

Hi Dan,

Fair response, thanks. Genuinely re-assuring.
(I did of course mean Bo, when I said Dan earlier, sorry)

Just one / two clarifications to add.

Finding reason to debate detail improvements in MoQ "as written by
Bob" is in no way being critical of him, his words, or underestimating
the effort in writing such books - (I for one have taken a great deal
of effort to understand his actual life struggle - more than most I'd
reckon.)

Secondly, most importantly "being qualified" shoud be no barrier to
contributions, provided such contributions are positively,
constructively directed. Critical analysis for it's own sake has
little value, and no interest for me.

I cannot believe Bob would have problems with any opinions aimed
constructively at taking the MoQ forward. The last thing he'd want is
for the MoQ to simply stand on the reputation of two successful books
he wrote. His baby is off and running and fending for itself, and
evolving on its own terms, in the big bad world. Proud father in
retirement. The MoQ Bob "envisions" is history, important history
worth understanding and respecting, I'll grant you, but history
nevertheless, unless Bob comes out of retirement. The MoQ is not
"Robert Pirsig's MoQ" in any proprietorial sense.

This is no personality / celebrity cult.

We agree about SOLAQI.

Regards
Ian

On 1/2/07, Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
> 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/
>