[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[X Acto]

________________________________


Ron:
What I am saying is that clarity in meaning also means gaining a biographical context of the speaker.
In fact one gains greater meaning from a discussion rather than the analysis of the language used in a 
single body of static statements. This is not the defense of meaninglessness it is the call to greater 
clarity and intelligibility.

Tuukka:

Every other person seems to be suspicious of my motives nowadays. Timo kept asking me what's the reason why I'm doing this. I used to tell him: "No reason." He retorted by asking again for a reason. So I came up with something on the top of my mind. Just yesterday he told me he didn't like that reason, and said he maybe doesn't want to continue working on this. Then I told him, very clearly, that I only provided him a reason because he kept asking for one, and that I have no real reason to do this. He thought that was great, and wanted to resume work.

I have no interest in either invalidating or validating Pirsig's work, and I have no *particular* interests whatsoever. I just thought it would sound dumb if I came here for no reason at all, and presented my work to you for no reason at all. But if you want the *truth*, *that's* what I actually am doing.

Ron:
No one does anything for no utility puropse or reason. You have reasons but you are not very developed
at the reflection and explanation of your reasons. What seems to matter is that you both like doing what
you are doing, it's an intellectual high you share, Its the relationship that matters most. It's a shame that
most of us can't really share that with you too, simply because it runs contrary to why most of us are
here to begin with. BUT it doesent mean we can't share and learn from eachother either.

..

> 
> Ron:
> Probably because The MoQ holds that all truth statements are rhetorical. Thus truth statements are held to the contingent. Consequently Analytical philosophers are going to group MoQ with poststucturalism.
> 
> This is why some of us think that you really do not understand Robert Pirsigs work because it rejects the
> very foundations of what you are trying to accomplish with SOQ.
> 
> 
> ..
> 
Tuukka:
I already know axiomatic assumptions are arbitrary, or "rhetoric", if you like. But what you are saying seems, metaphorically, as if you were defending every person's birthright to write "sghksdgnlsgsegjt3490ö5tu3jpqotgjsdghf" and claim it's a valid statement of some language. Yet, you yourself never write "sghksdgnlsgsegjt3490ö5tu3jpqotgjsdghf", but instead, grammatically correct sentences of English.

So what's the point of defending this birthright? Who challenged it in the first place, and how?