[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[ridgecoyote at gmail.com]

How can you guys talk about subjective interpretations of the MoQ with a straight face? 

I know you know better than to use that term, but that's what all your carping is really about, right? The "objective " truth is the MoQ as described by Pirsig, eh?   Hogwash!  

Oh well. Keep on arguing over your static interpretations then. We all get a real kick out of it, I can tell you. 

John and the losers 



On Apr 17, 2012, at 6:20 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 3:32 AM, Andre wrote:
> 
>> I am not suggesting that no one is entitled NOT to have their version of an moQ. But I am not interested in discussing Marsha's or Mark's or for that matter Tuuka's moQ. I am interested in discussing Pirsig's MOQ. Of course we can disagree saying, hello, this does not line up with my experience in relation to what Pirsig argues, I need clarification here. So then I'd rather be pointed out where my experience is possibly wrong or mistaken IN RELATION TO PIRSIG'S MOQ and why. And I believe it is reasonable to expect from me a more substantial argument than: "well it's MY experience", it's my interpretation and that is the only one that counts!
> 
> 
> Arlo said:
> Right, we have two opposing "descriptions of Quality". We have Pirsig's description, and we have the other person's description. I'm not sure what is problematic here, it is perfectly coherent to say "Pirsig's MOQ and Arlo's MOQ vary on Point A".
> 
> dmb says:
> Another good way to think about the difference is to ask two separate questions. 1) What does Pirsig mean? and 2) Is Pirsig right? The first question is about the best way to read Pirsig's books and the second question can't really be asked until the first one has been answered pretty well. This is just a matter of logical necessity because one cannot test, dispute, affirm or criticize an idea unless and until you know what that idea is. The problem is not that somebody might have a way to improve or refine Pirsig's work. As a matter of principle, we not only don't want to shut that down, it's a hopeful ideal to be aimed for.
> The problem is with the particular people around here who think they have a better idea than Pirsig, who think they are masters of the second question when in fact they haven't even come close to settling the first question. 
> 
> Ron:
> Dave you nailed it. Those who genuinly love wisdom explore the historical aspect of the questions RMP
> raises placing those questions in the proper philosophic context before we can ever begin to understand the
> answers he provides. 
> Those masters of the second question, the so-called "masters of reality" the self proclaimed intellectual
> messiah's who are the only hope of "the" MoQ as if it is divorced of Robert Pirsig, are a real danger to
> those pursuing that first question and, consequently, effecting the possibility of a genuine improvment and
> refinement of Pirsigs Metaphysic.
> I think Bo, Ham, and now Tuuka can be grouped into that club, Marsha....I dunno. She publicly
> wrestles with her own demons. Anyone who denies anything so much is completely enslaved by it.
> 
> I think if the terms are made up and the explanation is complicated and express an already understood
> concept but in more complicated esoteric terms ie: 
> "Equivalence of nonrelativizably used predicates can be deduced as a theorem of three axioms. 
> I call the axioms Tuukka’s Rules of Metaphysical Argumentation (TRMA)."
> And he speaks as if the term is commonly understood among "analytical philosophers"....WTF!!
> 
> ..Dave, Arlo, Andre, the bullshit never ends. Just had to vent guys....sorry.
> 
> .
> 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