[MD] Another parallel

[X Acto]

Platt:
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." 

Ron:
The only understanding I may gleen from this statement in reference to my question
is that the MoQ in your opinion is not teachable or explainable in any way.

How did you come by it? certainly, as the above quote proves, it certainly IS
explainable he just explained it.
Why, if a professor does the same thing in a classroom is it wrong?

that makes anything you say about MoQ wrong. so that even your quotes 
and your statements about MoQ are also academic and wrong.

I just do not understand this rational Platt.


 



________________________________
From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:15:43 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

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




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. 

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/