--- skutvik@online.no wrote: > 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.
>
Now that you've chosen your "side", the universe can
sit back and wait for the next schism, in the side you
like. Eventually there's only you left.
André
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
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