[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

Fri Dec 12 08:04:22 PST 2008

Ron,

Faith is simply an individual choice to believe.
It isn't Pirsig's purpose to do so, in fact it is
more likely that 'faith' will kill any real progress
in MOQ.

Your point about the individual deciding is very
much correct, but then it is that way with all learning.
Once presented with the elements of any knowledge
or skill 'set' it is the internalization that comes
from practice and attention, which gives fluency.

Since we were not taught MoQ as children, it is like
a foreign language, we struggle to learn it.

thanks--mel

----- Original Message -----
From: "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

Ham,
Also I wanted to add that while Pirsig does not offer us any faith
he does offer us the belief in our own expereince and the power
to derrive value for the individual.

He gives the kick in the pants to go figure it out on your own
because no one can tell you what it is all about. Only the individual
can decide what their own expereince means.

Trying to tell people their purpose and meaning allways seems to go awry.

________________________________
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:42:19 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

Greetings Ham,

I derrived that statement in opposition to yours which, I quote:

"The mistake of Pirsig and his interpretors is to posit Value (Quality) as
primary to existence,
thereby rejecting the individual subject without whose realization there
would be no value."

I maintain that we Pirsigians can validate our statement via expereince.
If we deprive our biological values the self dissolves into unconsciousness
and perhaps enihlation, deprived of the value of oxygene.
This is simply one of many examples which rest apon the concept
that there is a value requirement for the self to exist and function
normally.
I think what you might be expressing is the neo-platonic ideal of the soul
and how it relates and returns to the Paremindean "One".

Now if you argue that "value" and oxygene are simply metaphors for the
process of being aware
then that self same logic may apply to your own theories making this merely
an exercise in the
art of pursuasion of belief.
But the pragmatic truth remains in expereince, deprevation of certain values
will cause one self to
dissolve.

thank you for the opportunity
Ron

________________________________
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon..net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:54:56 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

Greetings, Ron --

> Hello Ham, very nicely done.
> Although logically certain, your concept of being is empty
> of content. No sense perception illustrates this truth.
> Your value is a judgement of pure thought, not experience.

I don't see how you could possibly come up that that conclusion from
anything I've said.

The "content" or essence of being is Value. Value is sensed
psycho-emotionally by the individual self, which is a value-sensible agent.
What it "perceives" as existence is value objectivized as being by
experience and intellection. There is no "pure thought", since all thought
and experience is relational and differentiated.

How is my ontology "empty"? Not only is it meaningful from the human
perspective, it offers a primary source of creation and a "valuistic
purpose" for the life experience, neither of which is suggested in Pirsig's
MoQ.

--Ham

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/