[MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

Mon Jul 12 05:49:21 PDT 2010

Yeah, you said. You think I didn't know that ?

You on the other hand seem to believe there has been some issue with
freedom of speech on MD. Welcome back Marsha.

Ian

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:46 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> These are RMP's words.  Listen for yourself.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>
>> Oohh, oohh, Nazi's 4 lines in - do I win a prize ?
>>
>> So thank Horse, freedom of speech is upheld on MD.
>> Ian
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:37 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Arlo,
>>>
>>> To paraphrase RMP:  'any culture which permits freedom of speech is morally superior to any culture which does not.  Because in this Metaphysics of Quality, intellect is a higher level of evolution, and when a social organization, whether it's nazis, or communists, or anybody, tries to prevent this evolution from taking place that is an immoral act, that's an evil act.  And you see it happening.  Once you understand this, you see it happening in all sorts of places that you wouldn't expect it normally.'
>>>
>>> This is from the 'Church of Reason' section of THE MOQ at OXFORD dvd.  Notice it doesn't state an freedom of speech exemption for the MD List.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
>>>
>>>> [Bo]
>>>> I hate to the make it personal and would have liked to say "...those who have supported the MOQ" because I know that Mary and Platt do defend the MOQ. Likewise shame on the hypocrites who - to my great satisfaction - are those who don't know the first thing about the MOQ -  Ian and Dan f.ex. - from DMB I didn't expect anything else.
>>>>
>>>> [Arlo]
>>>> I'm taking the liberty to rectify the poor rhetoric and ignorance in this short example of "why Bo has nothing relevant to say".
>>>>
>>>> I hate to the make it personal and would have liked to say "...those who have supported [my interpretation of Pirsig's] MOQ" because I know that Mary and Platt do defend [my interpretation of Pirsig's] MOQ. Likewise shame on the hypocrites who - to my great satisfaction - are those who don't know the first thing about [why my interpretation of the MOQ is better than Pirsig's] MOQ -  Ian and Dan f.ex. - from DMB I didn't expect anything else.
>>>>
>>>> There. Accurate. Rhetorically sound.
>>>>
>>>> What Bo has proven here, though, is just what I pointed out the other day, the only expenditure here is to claim interpretive legitimacy by claiming that there is ONE MOQ, and of this even the author himself is not to be trusted to deliver the "strong" interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> [Pirsig]
>>>> There already is a metaphysics of Quality. A  subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of Quality - the first slice of undivided experience  is into subjects and objects.
>>>>
>>>> [Arlo]
>>>> Correct. What we conventionally call "THE MOQ", the convention that has confounded Bo since I've been a member of the list, is what we, those interested in Pirsig's ideas, use to refer to specifically Pirsig's ideas.
>>>>
>>>> This is why Bo is more concerned with claiming legitimacy for his revision of Pirsig's work (claiming it is THE metaphysics of Quality) rather than just stating the simple and elegant truth.
>>>>
>>>> Bo's ideas are a revision of Pirsig's ideas.
>>>>
>>>> Bo's formulation for a metaphysics of Quality is a critical revision of Pirsig's metaphysics of Quality.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, I'm going to back up for a moment to Pirsig's comment above and say "of Quality" is redundant. It concretizes something (not a problem for most of us, but apparently a great burden for the SOLists).
>>>>
>>>> You could just say "Pirsig's metaphysics" and be done with it.
>>>>
>>>> Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of Pirsig's metaphysics.
>>>>
>>>> Accurate. Rhetorically sound. Valid. Simple.
>>>>
>>>> Back to Bo's horrible rhetoric.
>>>>
>>>> [Bo]
>>>> So, from now on I'll drop the SOL and call it by it's proper designation: "The Strong Interpretation of the MOQ".
>>>>
>>>> [Arlo]
>>>> Actually, if you want its "proper designation", you'd have to go with "A Strong Interpretation of Pirsig's MOQ"... in other words "Bo's MOQ".
>>>>
>>>> Frankly, I'm continually amazed that so much effort is spent in such shoddy ways to grasp any straw of authoritative legitimacy possible. But since you have never really understood Pirsig, I guess no one should be surprised.
>>>>
>>>> [Bo]
>>>> Whether Pirsig agrees or not is of little interest...
>>>>
>>>> [Arlo]
>>>> In your entire post, this is the only nine words that make any sense. Kudos, as Ian said.
>>>>
>>>> [Bo]
>>>> ... no one can copyright reality and the MOQ is not an expansion of the intellectual level, but an expansion of reality itself.
>>>>
>>>> [Arlo]
>>>> I'll take the liberty to correct this monstrosity as well.
>>>>
>>>> "... no one can copyright reality and [my interpretation of Pirsig's] MOQ is not an expansion of the intellectual level, but an expansion of reality itself. "
>>>>
>>>> Its really no wonder, Bo, with such a dismal display of "thinking", only three or four people here take you seriously or pay attention to this SOL nonsense at all.
>>>>
>>>> If you had been paying attention, you'd have seen I provided you a sound rhetorical and argumentatively valid platform last week.
>>>>
>>>> [Arlo previously]
>>>> Pirsig's ideas = "A metaphysics of Quality" (the foundation for which we are all here, to be sure), and Bo's ideas = "A metaphysics of Quality" that is a critical revision of Pirsig's ideas.
>>>>
>>>> Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns", instead of "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM".
>>>>
>>>> [Arlo]
>>>> Your latest post is simply more evidence that you are eternally trapped in some battle (with yourself?) for interpretative legitimacy. I had hoped, as I'm sure others were doing, that your time away was spent figuring that out. Obviously not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/md/archives.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/md/archives.html
>>>
>> 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/md/archives.html
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>