From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 21:06:23 GMT
Mike,
Mike said:
To bring all that together - the MOQ is a set of definitions that can be
grasped by a subjective intellect. It's a 4th-level pattern.
Matt:
If Bo agrees to that (and it appears from his recent interlocution he agrees
with you on something resembling this), then Bo has vacated the position
that he's been opposing to Anthony and myself (and everybody else). This is
why, despite Bo's use of caps, I think he's terribly ambiguous. I've not
often been proven wrong over time on my original hunches of where a person's
position is in relation to mine. Usually I'm corrected after the first
reply back if I do make a mistake of reading. But Bo---most of the
conversation we had was in just trying to figure out where he was. For the
most part I kept dual arguments going. One was for how he seemed needlessly
bombastic since some of the time he sounded nearly identical to everyone
else (like if he agrees to the above) and the other for, if there was a real
difference and not a verbal one, what some of the reasons are for not
inhabiting that position (doesn't sync up with Pirsig, self-reference
problem, etc.). But I remember, and there's also a paper trail, oscillating
between both positions while in the conversation. At first I thought
verbal, then I thought real, then I slowly went back to verbal, til a last
minute reversal pushed me into real. Every other post, and sometimes in the
same post, Bo would make it sound like a verbal issue and then a real issue.
Eventually the conversation just fell apart. (I don't think it helps that
Bo thinks he's crystal clear. You told me in the other post that you think
brevity would help my case. People not being clear about what I write is
why I spend so much time belaboring a point. I want to present the proper
context so people don't have to spend so much time wondering what I could
mean. People may still do that, but I try and leave them enough evidence to
work something up, rather than hip-shot sputterings that can be fit into
just about any constellation of meaning.)
At any rate, if that's SOL's position, then you've vacated the position that
made SOL so contentious. It looks like you've solved the problem, but I'm
not so sure what's supposed to be so interesting about SOL or how its
different from mainline interpretations.
Mike said:
I'm totally in agreement with that last sentence ["The only truth it seems
to me we need to take from the subject/object divide is that the
first-person point of view is the way we think.], but I _do_ think there's
something a bit momentous about subjectivity. In short, subjectivity is a
brand new arena in which DQ can operate. The possibilities afforded by
subjectivity are staggering - take Tolkien's creations, for instance.
Subjectivity, though, is only one half of creativity - inspiration depends
on DQ as well.
Matt:
Well, I guess you could say I'm just bored with it. The reason I may still
find Quality momentous is because I can still see how it changes the recent
past. But subjectivity--it just strikes me as something we've already
milked all the changes out of. It may have been momentous in the past, and
maybe with good reason, but it seems all the good effects have been learned
and while avoiding all the bad.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
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 : Thu Nov 03 2005 - 04:20:40 GMT