From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 21:25:51 BST
Hi Mark,
You said: "While you [David M] and i agree with the MoQ, there are many who do
not. I should urge those who do not agree with the MoQ to first state the MoQ
position as it is before introducing their own terminology and/or challenging
arguments. I feel this is a matter of intellectual integrity - anything else is
unacceptable.
Andy: I agree with the MOQ [in a sense]. There are many illuminating insights
in Pirsig's philosophy. However, I really don't know how to state the MOQ
position as it is. My take is that the MOQ is evolving. I have yet to come up
with it's position as is. This seems to be one of the purposes of this
discussion here. So, I am unsure what it is you are exactly asking for.
My geuss is you would wish we would state what Pirsig said using his terminology
and then build from there--noting the differences between our terminology and
his. This seems to be something repeated by others here also. I think for the
ones who have been around awhile, it is usually pretty easy to tell the
difference. I don't think Bo should have to make this distinction every time he
uses the term Q-intellect. It would be very repititious and boring if he did.
To be hung up on such distinctions gets in the way of progressive discussions.
If you could state the position of the MOQ as it is, then we might have
something to start from. However, be warned, there is bound to be some
discussion on whether or not this really is the position as it is. We all seem
to be circling around this position without ever really nailing it's precise
coordinates down.
Regards,
Andy
> Dave M:
> I would say the activity of mind
> is DQ but memory and all its workings in terms
> of re-cognition and perception is SQ. So SQ/DQ have
> to work together in what we call mind.
>
> Regards
> DM
>
> Hello Dave,
> I wish to distance myself from the statement that DQ = mind.
> I agree with your assertion, which is also essentially that of the MoQ; Mind,
> a term we can actually dismiss if we choose to, is a repertoire of static
> intellectual patterns evolving in response to DQ. These patterns are very often
> socially approved, and this provides another good argument for dismissing the
> term 'mind.'
>
> (DQ may also disrupt a repertoire of static patterns to the extent of
> non-viability.)
>
> Your assertion that activity of the static repertoire is Dynamic appears to
> correlate very well with the MoQ.
>
> While you and i agree with the MoQ, there are many who do not. I should urge
> those who do not agree with the MoQ to first state the MoQ position as it is
> before introducing their own terminology and/or challenging arguments. I feel
> this is a matter of intellectual integrity - anything else is unacceptable.
> Mark
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 24 2003 - 21:27:36 BST