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

[MarshaV]

Greetings Bo,

Trustworthy witness?  A trustworthy witness would have no-thing 
to say; all else are patterns, lost and found.


Bo 




On Jul 16, 2010, at 4:41 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:

> Mary, Arlo, All.
> 
> Arlo had said:
>>> What focus on "THE" does is trap the conversation in "who speaks for THE
>>> metaphysics of Quality?" rather than "whose ideas are better?" And not
>>> only that, it leads to absurdity after absurdity. I mean, you don't
>>> really want to support an "argument" that says "Pirsig is a weak
>>> interpreter of Pirsig"? Do you? Because since he denies he wrote
>>> anything in his books that would lead to that conclusion, that is what
>>> he becomes. Too dumb to understand what he himself was saying, and part
>>> of the "weak interpreter" camp that promtes a "dead MOQ" (whatever that
>>> means).
> 
> Bodvar comments: 
> The "THE" issue is artificial, we all know that it is our respective 
> opinions we express, but can't put IMOs and IMHOs in front of - or 
> after - each sentence. 
> 
> Mary replied:
>> Here is what Pirsig says.
> 
>    ZMM Chapter 16: Phædrus¢ second metaphysical phase was 
>    a total disaster. Before the electrodes were attached to his 
>    head he¢d lost everything tangible: money, property, children; 
>    even his rights as a citizen had been taken away from him by 
>    order of the court. All he had left was his one crazy lone dream 
>    of Quality, a map of a route across the mountain, for which he 
>    had sacrificed everything. Then, after the electrodes were 
>    attached, he lost that. I will never know all that was in his head 
>    at that time, nor will anyone else. What¢s left now is just 
>    fragments: debris, scattered notes, which can be pieced 
>    together but which leave huge areas unexplained. When I first 
>    discovered this debris I felt like some agricultural peasant near 
>    the outskirts of, say, Athens, who occasionally and without 
>    much surprise plows up stones that have strange designs on 
>    them. I knew that these were part of some larger overall 
>    design that had existed in the past, but it was far beyond my 
>    comprehension. ... It is probably a long way from what he 
>    thought. When trying to recreate a whole pattern by deduction 
>    from fragments I am bound to commit errors and put down 
>    inconsistencies, for which I must ask some indulgence. In 
>    many cases the fragments are ambiguous; a number of 
>    different conclusions could be drawn. If something is wrong 
>    there¢s a good chance that the error isn¢t in what he thought 
>    but in my reconstruction of it, and a better reconstruction can 
>    later be found.  
> 
> Bodvar comments:
> Thanks Mary for finding this, it pertains to a most sensitive point that 
> we have touched on from time to time, but have left quickly:  Pirsig 
> may not be the most trustworthy witness about what Phaedrus' ideas 
> were and may explain why his presentation varies so wildly between 
> ZAMM where he equalizes SOM with "intellect", to LILA where MOQ's 
> 4th. level is a bland no-one-knows-what thing. The initial equation is 
> radical beyond anything hitherto conceived and Phaedrus must have 
> felt alienated and scared over what genie he had let out of its bottle. 
> This combined with the immense pressure he exposed himself to 
> when attending the philosophy course while teaching at the Navy Pier 
> University. Anyway he was treated with the electrical equivalent of 
> lobotomy and his "hard-disk" was partially erased. What I believe Mary 
> means and this quote says is that the post hospital author of ZAMM 
> found big and small pieces of Phaedrus' written material whereby he 
> reconstructed the Quality Idea to the point he believed was as close to 
> the original, and this contains the "Genie" - the Intellect = SOM -  but 
> when starting on LILA (further removed from Phaedrus in the time) the 
> Quality= Reality issue took precedence and the erroneous conviction 
> formed that if this could be proved "mission was accomplished" - MOQ 
> just an arbitrary ordering of Quality. But - alas - the Quality=Reality is 
> an axiom, it cannot be proved the proof is what reality the DQ/SQ 
> constellation creates (plus the static levels with the former 
> Subject/Object constellation the top level)  AND THAT IS A 
> FABULOUS REALITY! 
> 
> Again thanks Mary, but also thanks to Arlo, this was a "fair" approach 
> to the issue.
> 
> Bodvar                 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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


 
___