[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Platt Holden]

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>wrote:

> Bodvar to Platt:
>
> That is, it's good in the sense of wanting to be forthcoming to Horse,
> but to give the "devil the little finger ..."
>
> Andre:
> Nothing forthcoming to Horse Bodvar. Platt clearly expresses his doubts
> about your interpretation of the intellectual level PLUS the results of his
> own experience, expressed in the observation: 'where does the idea of beauty
> fit?'. Are we seeing cracks in the SOL armour...by one of its staunchest
> defenders (without completely understanding it)??!!!
>

[Platt} You wish. If you think the intellectual level includes mystic
understanding or aesthetic appreciation you have some explaining to do.
Let's see your "complete understanding."

   And you continue Bodvar:

> you know;-)  The intellectual
> level is either the S/O distinction  (SOM ninus its metaphysical rank) or
> we are back in the quagmire.
>
> And here we have the most atrocious defence of the thing that cannot be
> defended. If this, and listen all you 'liberals', is not defending dogma I
> do not know what is. Bodvar, you are fairly and squarely caught with your
> pants down! It is either your interpretation or a quagmire?
>
> You do not understand the MOQ my friend. This is the only conclusion I can
> draw.
>
> [Platt]
Is it possible, Andre, that you do not understand the MOQ?.

Andre
   And then to think and realize that Mr. Pirsig worked so hard and suffered
so much to bring us         the obvious which had been eluded for such a
long time...and then to still find people to stuff it all up.

[Platt]
Hard work and suffering is irrelevant to the value of a metaphysics. . .



> Bodvar:
> Regarding "the mystical understandings" these are not of the static realm
> but encounters with - or efforts at at reaching the dynamic, but that's a
> risky biz,...
>
> Andre:
> Here you do it again (jeez!) Platt is asking about 'understandings', you
> know insights. These are static patterns of value which, as you now clearly
> indicate, confuse your interpretation of the intellectual level, because
> your interpretation does not allow for them. You keep on confusing DQ/SQ!
>

[Platt}
 "Understanding" is not always intellectual, the mystic understanding being
the most relevant case in point.

>
> Bodvar continues:
> no one can stay there permanently. The Indian fakirs try  and it's
> impressive, but it will  kill them.
>
> Andre:
> Needles to say Bodvar, you have killed DQ in defence of your static
> representation of the intellectual level. This is low quality indeed.
>
> Bodvar:
> Ref:Arlo's about the Reality=Quality issue. I commented it but that's the
> signal to clam shut.
>
> Andre:
> I think it would be a good idea to pay a little more attention and respect
> to what Arlo says Bodvar. Arlo is a good person and his post are intelligent
> and stimulating.
>
> I am afraid to observe that ever since Mary brought the 'fundamentalist'
> and the 'liberalist' distinction into play things have developed into an
> us-versus-them battle. This is very low quality.
>
> And what was the reasoning? The 'fundamentalists', in the process of still
> developing sound, high quality understandings of Mr. Pirsig's writings
> prefer to stay as close as is possible to these writings in an effort not to
> distort their meanings nor their intentions and thereby developing high
> quality experiential patterns for themselves. That is, static
> representations of dynamic experiences.
>
> The 'liberals'are opposed to this. They follow and 'Hurray' the free
> thinking Bodvar who suggests that their experiences are SOM... and everyone
> agrees and everyone is happy with the free thinker!
>
> But you do not think and experience for yourself!!! As Pirsig ( yeah, sorry
> to bring him up again)argued, this dualistic way of approaching the
> motorcycle sounds right (because we are indoctrinated by it and therefore so
> used to it) but it is an artificial interpretation. It's never been reality
> itself.
>
> Mr. Pirsig opens the experiential abstractions ( inorganic, organic, social
> and intellectual) and Bodvar closes them with his intellectual definition
> (SOM). Now, who's the real MoQ'er?
>
>
>
>