Thanks Bo:
For a while there I thought I'd lost it all together. To be reassured by you
is a such a relief. Without it, my next stop might well have been to the
home for the neuronically challenged and some sessions with old
sparky.
Platt
PLATT:
> > 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?
BO:
> 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 ....!
PLATT:
> > 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?
BO:
> 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?:-)
PLATT:
> > 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.,
BO: 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