Platt and All.
You wrote:
> Whoa. Hold on there. I must be missing something really big. The
> starting point of the MOQ can be "meaning?" Or "Nirvana?" Or
> "Bollocks?" In other words, the starting point can be whatever you
> want to be, whatever turns you on?
Fatigue shows obviously, but I try by some shock method to make people
understand the quality idea. You see they speak so lightly about "rejection of
the SOM" as if something they have contemplated from kindergarten age,
but no sooner have they said it than they are into the mire again - few the
objective ditch these postmodern times, but most often the subjective one
and believe they reveal some universal truth by showing that also the MOQ
is ....and then follows their version of what "everything is": Language, mere
words, bollocks, ideas, in our minds ...etc. A few in a positive sense wanting
to replace "value" with another good fundamental like Jonathan's "meaning"
- and some other from old that I only vaguely recall - "God" was one. I then
try to show them that this is what Pirsig HAS done by pointing to their own
"innermost" thing which would become a "Metaphysics of X" (MOX) if they
postulate a dynamic/static X and the known levels. This may make them
understand the quality IDEA because us harping on Morality and Value for
six years now seem not to have convinced anyone. I ended by saying that
Quality is the BEST - the place everything ends - but only managed to shock
YOU. Kick my ....!
> Here all along I've been under the illusion, apparently, that the
> starting point of the MOQ was Morality, that is, the good, the bad,
> and the ugly. Doesn't Pirsig make it clear that "meaning"
> (intellectualizing) is a secondary phenomena, derivative from direct
> experience of a morally ordered, value-laden, Quality universe?
> Doesn't the fact that Pirsig concludes that Lila has Quality reflects
> her goodness, not her undefined meaning, whatever that means?
Of course the starting point is Morality, the other terms that people suggests
are either other names for it, or value-derivatives. I am 100% committed to
that. It's just a new education method ..maybe counterproductive. What
does Maggie think about it?:-)
> Either I've misinterpreted you guys or Pirsig or the meaning of
> "meaning.". Please tell me how I've gone wrong. When Bo says, "Yet,
> Quality is the best" isn't that the STARTING POINT of the MOQ--moral
> judgments--this is better (or worse) than that?
> Confused in the U.S.,
Sorry for confusing you, as said I just try - too hard at times.
Bo
I noticed today's exchange between you and André, Erin, Horse, but it's too
much to comment. Count me on your and Horse's side ...if I've got it right,
I'm starting to doubt my judgement.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST