[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[John Carl]

Nice Khoo,

You really make the point well that we are engaged in an infinite process,
and if we expect any sort of  finality we're going to be disappointed.

But even while our formulations and dialectical wrangling seem endless, we
ought to also be progressing - getting us somewhere.

I myself feel happy and content with my own evolving ideas, generated by the
many good ideas and thinkers on this list for their time, effort and care.
I want to thank each and every contributor, the more infuriating, the
better.

As always, Khoo,  you bring a fresh wind and a fresh perspective.

Good words, and I appreciate them.


John.


n Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Khoo Hock Aun <khoohockaun at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> That many can read an author like Pirsig and come away with widely
> differing
> understandings is to be expected.
>
> I would have thought a more open dynamic mind would be completely receptive
> to what Pirsig was trying to convey. A closed static mind, sees the MOQ
> only
> in its own mould.  In Bo's case, I would venture fourth stage meta-stasis
> had already set in years ago.
>
> Pirsig should have added a caveat, that the MOQ is not for everyone to
> grasp
> at first instance. For some it could takes, years, decades or even a
> lifetime.
>
> Dave added:
>
>
> > I really, really hate what you're doing to this place, clogging it up
> with
> > this hair-brained nonsense all the time. I listened to it for over a
> decade
> > now and I'm just sick to death of it. Please, get a hobby. Go away. Let
> us
> > do philosophy, will you? That would be "a promising development".
> >
> Khoo would like to say:
>
> I, for one, really appreciate all your exertions, as do all else who labour
> like you do to clarify our understanding of the MOQ and Quality as
> presented
> by Pirsig.
>
> It is not wasted, even if it might be on Bo.
>
> It has helped instead to refresh our perspectives, place into context,
> again
> and again by repeated defence against the assault on Pirsig's MOQ.
>
> Lurkers and newbies alike, if I may say so, who disdain but endure the
> endless, sometimes pointless argumentation over basic definitions, see much
> value in defending Pirsig's formulation of the MOQ, given that it is THAT
> which drew them here in the first place, not a pretender's version.
>
> If and when, we, as a discussion group,  leave all this "adolesecent"
> sparring behind, I hope we can explore the new vistas an expanded
> rationality can explore.
>
> We still have not bridged Western and Eastern philosophies yet, which is
> one
> such great promise of the MOQ finding common ground I look forward to;
> by understanding how Eastern civilisations have achieved their respective
> intellectual levels as compared to the SOM-dominated Western worldview.
>
> We will cross the bridge when we come to it. But we are not there yet.
> Not when we still have to come to terms with tendencies no matter how overt
> or latent, for Western hegemony over the rest of the world.
>
> It does looks like a slog, but then again, who can ask for a better cast of
> characters than on the this list to make philosophy an ongoing dynamic
> battle, an everyday real-life clash of ideas sometimes couched in terms of
> "biblical proportions" and implications. It gets the adrenaline pumping;
> emotional drivers that help meld the static and the dynamic to yield
> creative insight by the clash of the rhetorical swords.
>
> You stay keen and sharp by your own vigilance for the real and good. This
> state of mind does not come in the absence of opponents and detractors who
> distract by imposing themselves on you.
>
> Thats all they do and want to do.
>
> Best regards
> Khoo Hock Aun