[MD] Art & fine art

[John Carl]

Ant,



> [John Carl then said to Arlo, June 5th 2014]
>
> Jc:  Probably good advice, but my reading stack is already high...
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Yes John I've already noticed your half baked grasp of LILA and there's
> little evidence that you have read any other supporting literature
> surrounding the MOQ either.  Until you do make a genuine effort with the
> latter, you're really wasting your time on this discussion group.  Though I
> think you are largely sincerely in your contributions here, if you don't do
> your "MOQ homework", your posts will have little relevance to the various
> discussions that occur here and, in addition, you won't be able to make the
> most of the contributors here (certainly Arlo and DMB who really do have a
> good grasp of the MOQ - as defined by Robert Pirsig)!
>
> As you say that you already have a "high stack" of reading to get through,
> I'd suggest that you start with SODV ("Subjects, Objects, Data & Values") a
> short summary of the MOQ (only a few pages in length - with diagrams) which
> Robert Pirsig originally presented at the 1995 "Einstein Meets Magritte"
> Conference.  I know it has helped various people get their head around the
> MOQ over the years.
>
> It can be found at Horse's moq.org website.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ant
>
>
>
I've read SODV before Ant, it's worth re-reading and at your suggestion I
clicked the link but it didn't go anywhere except "problem loading page."

As far as my reading goes.  I think it's important to bring in other works
to the MD community; it's making an effort that nobody seems to
appreciate.  As Randall Auxier says, commenting upon the lack of
scholarship on the part of James scholars:  "this (ignorance of Royce)  is
typical of James scholars in the in the last half-century and has been a
failing in James scholars' understanding of their own subject.  A far
better job has been done by Timothy L.S. Sprigge in *James and Bradley:
American Truth and British Reality.   *see especially pgs 26-30 where
Sprigge notes the sense in which Royce's defense of the "intentional
stance" and its relation to error was "irresistible" to James, as little as
James liked it. ... My guess is that many James scholars breath a sigh of
relif upon the release of Sprigg's massive tome, thinking 'thank heavens i
don't have to do that now..'  I wonder how many them read all six hundred
pages. tho"

Well, breathe a sigh of relief y'all.  You don't have to because I have
done.

John