Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 1 Sep 1998 01:35:22 +0100
Platt & Squad
You brought this thread to a natural conclusion in your post of 27
Aug. I am honoured that you think so highly of Diana's and my
opinions. It was one of those rare moments when everything seems
worthwhile.
However, allow me to expand a little on your closing lines:
> So much for true confessions. I can only hope from now on that
> when I find it necessary to split (and split I must to think and write) it
> will be along the fault lines of dynamic forces and stable patterns of
> Quality or, at the least, along the spectrum of hi-lo values.
> Those MOQ splits take in and explain so much more of the world
> than SOM that in the end I have nothing but my own my narrow
> mindedness to blame for getting off track. Thanks to Jonathan, Bo,
> Diana and all for bringing me back.
This is just right. Throughout my acquaintance with Pirsig's ideas I
often wondered where they were leading, it seemed to require a
complete "otherworldliness" (Ken Clark once wondered if the SOM terms
had become swear-words). It looked impossible to skip two thirds of
language and develop a new MOQ vocabulary - (or settle a metaphysical
discussion at the end of each sentence in Pirsig's words.)
In my essay I spoke about the post-Copernican use of the up-down
adverbs, but did not really know how the subject-object terms could be
re-introduced in a relativistic sense, and advertised for a
"transformation" equation. Well, then Platt threw in the idea that
the MOQ itself was a possible next Q - development and it grew
into the - now - SOTAQI notion: subject-object thinking (or 'logic')
is the epitome of the Q-intellectual level. Suddenly every orphaned
piece of (my) puzzle fell into place, the S-O division is not an evil
to be shunned, but the highest good ....yet part of the big
Q-picture.
It's sin was to usurp the throne and declare itself to
be of metaphysical proportions; the way things were - truly, but by
the introduction of the MOQ things were put right again: it was
placed inside a greater scheme, and we can safely - in Platt's words
- "go on splitting" to our heart's content while keeping the Q
context in mind. I think Ken also saw the good of this development
when thanking me for having given him back the subjects and objects
:-).
I will take on Jonathan's objection that S-O thinking can't be ALL
of Q-intellect in a later post.
Bodvar.
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:45 CEST