[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[Ian Glendinning]

Bo, trying hard here ... (inserted below) ...

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:52 PM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Ian
>
> You wrote:
>
>> Hopefully Bo, you can therefore see why I 99% agree with your position.
>> In a way, the only thing I resist in your position is the tendency to
>> wrap the good in a static conception of the MoQ - exactly as you / and
>> Pirsig criticize Plato in that quote.
>
> We have on several occasion tried to come closer, but something
> blows us apart, I hope for fusion but .... "Wrap the good in a static
> position ...etc"? The MOQ is neither static or dynamic, but the
> QUALITY CONTEXT itself, one may get too dynamic.

[IG] We don't want MoQ to be 100% of anything (static or dynamic) - agreed.

>
>> In the same way as SOM destroyed Arete by rigidly encasing it, it is
>> possible to do the same with Quality in the MoQ if we don't allow it
>> (and its definitions) room to breathe, room for atma.
>
> SOM destroyed Aretê in the ZAMM context because it (SOM) was
> Quality's only fall-out there (called "intellect" FYI) You can't be as rigid
> as DMB who insists on ZAMM being a reality of itself unperturbed by
> the MOQ, but nothing exists outside its static range and in such a
> retro-translation it's plain that it ZAMM describes intellect's emergence
> from society*). To portray an historical era as all Quality-steeped is
> impossible, that goes for a group "teaching Quality", it can only be
> taught in the form of the MOQ.

[IG] Frankly, I barely understand that paragraph ... and the personal
intentional rhetoric puts me off even trying ... but here goes:
"nothing exists outside its static range" you say .... isn't that my
criticism, that you are statically encasing (all) things including the
MoQ.
Help me here.

>
>> You're happy being 99% perfect, but I ... wanna go one better ;-) Ian
>
> If the Intellectual level isn't 100% SOM it is not THE SOM

[IG] Precisely my point.

, but a
> mental container that has SOM at one layer and the MOQ at another
> and every metaphysics and systems  since God knows when, and this
> is good old MIND

[IG] Hmmm. Maybe being good, it is irrelevant that it is also old. Not
retro, but a matter of rehabilitating older conceptions because they
were better, exactly as Barfield and James and Pirsig were doing.
Improving on the older conceptions of "mind", clearly, not casting
them in concrete. One word doesn't "define" anything useful, not even
"intellect".

Besides all levels exists inside that mind-intellect.
> There seems to be something that prevents you all from grasping
> Phaedrus' original insight, I wish I knew what that blockage is?

[IG] No idea either. But Phaedrus wasn't 100% right or good once for
all time either, just a useful step in the ground beneath our wheels,
to use the prevailing metaphor. It's that static "compulsion" that
gets my goat.

>
>
> Bodvar
>
>
> *) P. of ZAMM is not the only one regarding (what the MOQ calls) the
> social era as a paradise lost. Remember Scott Roberts' Owen
> Barfield? His "participation" scheme starts with a golden age called
> "original participation" which is much like Aretê, then a "loss of
> participation" which is uncannily like SOM, and then he foresees a
> "restoration of participation" that must be his "moq", it's some time
> since I checked his system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>