[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

Wed Nov 3 15:29:14 PDT 2010

Andrie,
I have amply warned, I think, that I feel that this 'progress' of which
you speak is illusory; it is a descent into the abyss rather than the
summitting of a peak in the high country.  Maybe we are speaking of
different things though.  If this analysis of levels, and the more
complicated conclusions of Phaedrus are right, shouldn't we be able to
know this intellectually.  As it seems to me, the levels are postulates,
and I don't see that Phaerus would have offered them up unless they were
to help you get out!  IF they are to help you get in, shouldn't we be
able to derive them from first principles?  this would seem an
intelligent endeavor.  but taking them as the foundation for the
intellectual endeavor seems futile and dangerous.  It is to put our
trust in Phaedrus the prophet, and to follow him as dogmatic and
immobile servants of his god.  No?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is no talk for a novice, an entry level entrance , or someone
interested to learn things.

Do you know the European term 'estafette-argument'?
Or do i have to explain it?
greetz, Andrie, "attention"

------------------------------------------------------------------

2010/11/3 <rapsncows at fastmail.fm>

> Andre, Andrie, dmb,
>    Hello.
>
> In all seriousness, if you all don't pay attention to my posts I will
> consider it MY loss!  The most selfish thing I can hope for is that
> everyone figures shit out and behaves morally.  If I am lost, hook a
> brother up!!!  My understanding is that Phaedrus's point was that there
> is a real thing (I may use the term 'objectively real' as is my habit:
> if I can refrain from doing so are we all good?): morality.  Isn't this
> the starting point for the MoQ?  Am I spouting drivel here, or does the
> drivel start after this?
>
> Please see below:
>
> >
> > > dmb asks:
> > >
> > >
> > > What in the world is going on around here? Am I just having a nightmare
> or
> > > is this really happening?
> > >
> > > Andre:
> > > This is really happening dmb! What absolute drivel this Tim character
> > > produces. And he is not the only one. I have not followed his posts but
> was
> > > only drawn to it via your reaction. Problem is, at present, that these
> > > 'drivelers' now want nice summaries, clear definitions, and an
> exposition of
> > > the basic tenets of the MOQ in response to observations that they lack
> a
> > > basic understanding of it when you confront them with their drivel.
>
> Shouldn't you confront me with my drivel at least once before you level
> such a claim?  If you are the absolute authority on reality, please hook
> me up.  I am merely stating things as best I can (in the highest quality
> way I can) and ...  And Please recall Pirsig's own caveats about this
> whole metaphysics of quality thing.  On the other hand, if you are not
> the absolute authority on reality, perhaps by helping me work through my
> drivelly understanding you will better yourselves.
>
> > > To what extent do you take these posts seriously? Should you, to use
> > > Bodvar's metaphor, run around trying to plug every leak in the dike?
> (and
> > > don't say you miss him Marsha!)
>
> Why would you work on the parts that aren't leaking (or about to leak,
> etc.)?
>
> > > I am by no means an expert on the MOQ. We all try our best. I have
> worked
> > > pretty hard to at least get the basics right.
>
> Thank you!  But can I ask, seriously, what are you doing here?  I am
> new; I have just read the books and I wanted to talk about them, so I
> was stoked to find this site.  I wanted to get some other perspective on
> them.  I wanted to work some things out.  I even wanted to offer my
> perspective.  Etc.  But your response seems very much like a dogmatic
> and IMMOBILE adherent of some religion.  Look at what you write next!
>
>  It has been suggested before
> > > and it won't hurt to have it repeated: if you want to get into the MOQ
> you
> > > have to work for it and at it. Contrary to what Platt says in his
> latest
> > > post, you have to want Quality to come in.
>
> I am reminded of all the times I have heard people tell me, or someone
> else, "just invite Jesus in".  The sentence structure, the logic, are
> identical.
>
>  It will not 'just' happen to most
> > > of us. Must of us still hear the truth knocking at the door and we tell
> it
> > > to piss off because we are looking for the truth.
>
> There is even a part in the bible where Jesus is supposed to have said
> something like, I stand at the door and knock, whoever hears and answers
> will...
>
> > > Getting out of this SOM straight jacket is not easy. As a matter of
> fact it
> > > is very hard. All one can do is try and use ZMM and LILA as a guide.
> > >
> > > Quality every 6-year old knows. The MOQ is different and much more
> > > difficult but alas reading some posts you'd think they are written by
> 6-year
> > > olds.
>
> Thanks.  I will take this as very complimentary.  The 6 year old knows
> quality because he hasn't been bogged down with inadequate static
> structure.
>
> > > Where to start?
>
> Somewhere!  Pick the single thing that seems to be the lowest quality
> drivel I have spouted and run with it.
>
> > >
> > > It is with regret that I must confess that I have started to simply
> ignore
> > > some people's posts.
> > >
> > >
>
> I sincerely hope that you don't just write me off without a single
> effort!
>
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 22:13:30 +0100, "ADRIE KINTZIGER"
> <parser666 at gmail.com> said:
> > I agree, Andre, and also with DMB, it's total drivel.
> > This will kill every progress made earlier on.
> > Adrie "attention"- comes from 'island' (huxley)
> > we should pay attention. (birds voice)
> > greetz, Adrie
> >
>
> Andrie,
> I have amply warned, I think, that I feel that this 'progress' of which
> you speak is illusory; it is a descent into the abyss rather than the
> summitting of a peak in the high country.  Maybe we are speaking of
> different things though.  If this analysis of levels, and the more
> complicated conclusions of Phaedrus are right, shouldn't we be able to
> know this intellectually.  As it seems to me, the levels are postulates,
> and I don't see that Phaerus would have offered them up unless they were
> to help you get out!  IF they are to help you get in, shouldn't we be
> able to derive them from first principles?  this would seem an
> intelligent endeavor.  but taking them as the foundation for the
> intellectual endeavor seems futile and dangerous.  It is to put our
> trust in Phaedrus the prophet, and to follow him as dogmatic and
> immobile servants of his god.  No?
>
> I thank you and hope to hear from you,
> Tim
> --
>
>  rapsncows at fastmail.fm
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free
>
> 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
>

-- 
parser