[MD] Another parallel

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 14 Jul 2009 at 8:38, X Acto wrote:

> Platt,
> That first part was aimed at Bo,
> But I ask, in reference to my questions to you, is how then , is MoQ
> expected to make any difference? How is it to give value to a value-less
> intellectual pattern?
> I really have a hard time understanding how you can equate MoQ with anti-intellectualism.
> 
> -Ron

Do you have a hard time understanding this from Pirsig?

"Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a 
subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only
and not by reasoning of any kind." 


Platt




> ________________________________
> From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:16:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel
> 
> On 14 Jul 2009 at 6:33, X Acto wrote:
> 
> > These statements are meaningless and exhibit a social level
> > value of ignorance in the wake of saving face. Like the social level
> > values of the religios figures you so like to compare yourself to, the
> > dogmatic blind faith to your own ideals is staggering.
> 
> I express an opinion and you launch a personal attack. What's with that? 
> And what religious figures do I like to compare myself to? 
> 
> > Platt, 
> > Anthony is an "Academic" does this place him with SOM also?
> > Does this invalidate everything he has to say about the MoQ?
> > 
> > If not why not?  was the liverpool conference a sham in your eyes? 
> 
> Sure. Anthony is with SOM. So are you. So am I. Whatever anyone 
> says about the MOQ is SOM tainted.  But, "getting drunk and picking up 
> bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life." (Lila, 5)
> 
> I'm sure the liverpool conference was great for the participants, 
> especially having the privilege of meeting Pirsig in person. I wish I could 
> have been there. But as for the value of the papers presented there, 
> well, for me not much.