[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[ridgecoyote at gmail.com]

Hear hear here!  




On Apr 17, 2012, at 10:33 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah yes.
> 
> "There is but one Quality and Pirsig is its Prophet"
> 
> Where have I heard that before?
> 
> The scriptures have been written.  Now we have the apostles who do the
> interpretation.  They live high up in a tower cloaked with secrecy.
> They provide the prophesies, and tell us what to think.  All the while
> they turn the pages of that well worn book, looking for answers.
> 
> MoQ is rapidly becoming a dogmatic religion for some.  All we need is
> the alter; the inquisition is already in place.
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:09 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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. What kind of person can believe they are on a par with Pirsig even though they have not done the work, have never written or published a book, and/or have no background in philosophy? Can you imagine such an attitude with respect to any other discipline? It's like vandalizing a Picasso with finger paint and then calling yourself an artistic genius. It's crazy. Its that what we mean when we say a person suffers from grandiose delusions. Isn't that attitude outrageously arrogant, at best, and more likely the symptom of mental illness? Normal people just don't talk like that.
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 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