In a message dated 9/8/02 7:57:35 AM GMT Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org
> Hmm. Pirsig don't argue for or against the SOLAQI because it is not part of
> his reasoning, but forgive me for again trying to convey my reasoning:
> Pirsig rightly says that the SOM is ill-equipped to explain existence
> it denies values (by relegating them to the subjective realm), but along
> comes the MOQ and re-relegates the S/O (stripped of the 'M') to the
> of its own intellectual level. And as such it is the only "force" that can
> society because the value of separating what's objective from what's
> subjective checks social conformity the best.
> Hope things became a bit more clear.
More garbage from the helm.
The Objective realm is value also.
That's what unites the SOM divide - the recognition that its all a series of
values emerging from an aesthetic source.
To suggest SOLAQI is to reinforce a mistake. SOM does not control, it divides
and directs in an aesthetically displeasing way.
SOLAQI has no Art about it.
The answer, should you wish to ever release your ego and wake up, is to see
that an expansion of rationality towards its aesthetic source will harmonise
and unite in a meaningful and appropriate course.
All the best,
And not expecting too much in the way of a response to one of his little
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST