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

[MarshaV]

Marsha:
Ask Mr. Pirsig for evidence.  When I have asked others for 
evidence I get a sign.  

No more, I don't want to strain Horse's tolerance.   

You are such a sweet pea.   






On Jul 12, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Marsha]
> Play with xacto.  I'm interested in exploration, not winning.  There's nothing to win, and no one to win it.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You accused me of "stifling freedom of speech". I asked for evidence. This is what I get. Typical. Maybe you should "explore" your need to resort to dishonesty.
> 
> [Marsha]
> Watch again the section of the Oxford dvd, then argue with Mr. Pirsig.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I have nothing to argue with Pirsig about since NOTHING	in my post IN ANY WAY points towards "stifling free speech".
> 
> You could apologize to me for making such a baseless and dishonest charge. But I bet you won't.
> 
> Or...
> 
> Or you could actually answer my straightforward questions.
> 
> Why is the following such a seemingly alien concept for you, Platt and Bo?
> 
> (1) Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of Pirsig's metaphysics.
> 
> (2) 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".
> 
> Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what value do you think it has?
> 
> Do you disagree with me that we use the phrase "THE metaphysics of Quality" as a conventional way of referring specifically to Pirsig's ideas, but that it would in fact be more accurate to say "Pirsig's metaphysics"?
> 
> Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ" into some "reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? This makes no sense. Pirsig can't be wrong about his ideas, but his ideas can be wrong. In the same way, Bo's ideas are not "THE MOQ", they are his ideas.
> 
> If we drop the word "THE", and instead simply talk about people's ideas, do you not see how all this interpretive nonsense and need for authoritative legitimacy would disappear?
> 
> In other words, what do you think is wrong with saying "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"?
> 
> Does that not sum up your position? Why is it more important for you to say instead "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM"?
> 
> 
> 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


 
___