[MD] Trance state

[X Acto]

________________________________

From: "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 12:10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Trance state

Bo:
You have always been an enigmatic figure, first coming strongly on as  
a SOL adherer, then vehemently anti, then kind of neutral with an 
academical style and much Wikipedantic references, and finally anti 
again. The reason for my not answering your posts is that your 
criticism is inscrutable. For instance about dualisms in this post, I see 
no relevance - least not for the "intellect as SOM" issue and I fight for 
that interpretation because it gives the MOQ its explanatory power, 
while the "orthodox" interpretation leaves it "a non-starter" as Platt  so 
aptly said. 

Ron:
While I agree to the contextual reference required, I do not agree that it
stands as a universal human condition. 

Bo:
We know that Pirsig sees the intellect vs society struggle behind most 
conflicts since the former arrived on the scene and for this to be valid 
intellect must be SOM, no way of patching this up by making it (SOM) 
the dominating pattern fails, such an intellect is merely SOM's mind. 
We also know that Pirsig saw WW1 as the  turning point in the said 
struggle (in the West) and WW2 social value's last stand. And again, 
for intellect to have spawned the patterns that offends social value it 
must be SOM.  

Hitler would not have democracy (parliament) an independent juridical 
system, human rights and worth, free press, freedom of speech ...etc. 
His focus was concentrated on social values: absolute power, duty, 
honor, "blood and soil". OK, intellect prevailed, but the struggle has 
moved to another field the Muslim vs West conflict. For the social- 
value-steeped  Muslim culture the intellectual patterns are an equal 
threat to their ways where the  individual is subordinated the Holy Text 
as is the judicial system and everything else.  

Give me just one example of how your interpretation explains 
something. You also owe me examples of patterns you deem 
intellectual yet non-S/O. 

Ron:
I gave you several examples of non s/o dualisms others also forwarded
music painting and artistic expression. Appearently none of these meets
your satisfaction.

Bo:
Yours about science "throwing out subject/object for the use of DQ/SQ 
...etc" shows how sloppy you are regarding what I've written. I am the 
one to claim that we must leave science to intellect's S/O and that 
introducing Q-variants of the various disciplines is still-born. You are 
actually criticizing Pirsig on this point. Maybe it was done by purpose to 
provoke me, if so good try.

Ron:
If by provoking you mean asking pertanent questions than guilty I am.
If we leave science to intellects s/o then what is all this about?
It makes this whole endeavour meaningless and useless.
I still ask : Just how does assuming DQ/SQ as reality help,
or change the current situation? If it has no use for science,
what use does it in fact have? Give me one example, just one.
I have forwarded my examples, If you refute them then thats your business
but you at the very least owe me someting to consider.











Like convincing a creationist, absolutley nothing
> will shake their blind faith in their own views, even under the most
> obviouse proof against them. It is my ascertainment that by your
> persistence alone SOL survives for it certainly does not stand up to
> current applicable thought and is obsolete as it currently is formulated.
> Having said this, even if SOL is accepted by Pirsig it is dead in the
> water and closed to dynamic change plagued by paradox and infinite
> reduction. If perhaps you were better read and better researched and did
> some real homework rather than just promote your own opinion of Pirsigs
> work, you may make a better case to support your ideas, but you do not and
> have not. 
> 
> As a consolation, western culture increasingly dominates the earth
>  knowing that SOL is only applicable to western culture, it will soon come
> to represent THE universal human condition, just as you say. Alas I think
> you have an up hill battle getting science to revert back to positivism
> and throw out subject/object for the use of DQ/SQ in their scientific
> explainations. In other words, not only is SOLAQI obsolete it is also
> fails to provide any clearer form of an explaination of scientific data.
> If it does, I'd love to see an example, a clear demonstration of it's
> worth. I have asked for this several times in the past, I have given clear
> examples of how and why Pirsigs interpretation works yet you have not
> offered even one example. It astounds me how much creedance you recieve by
> virtue of rhetoric alone. It amazes how you require not even a shred of
> support or evidence greater than an out of context misinterpreted Pirsig
> Quote to sway opinion.
> 
> 
> Pipe on pied piper, lead your mice to their just rewards.
> 



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/

Hi Ron

You said quite exasperated:

> Bo, Obviously, there is nothing I can say to prove to you that your theory
> is inconsistent even when I DO prove that it is inconsistent, which I
> have,  to your silence.