From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Aug 23 2003 - 08:20:57 BST
David and Humanity.
You addressed me on 16 August:
> OK. Like I've said, I think SOLAQI is a good idea taken way too far.
> But rest assured, I very often protest against added, collapsed and
> otherwise distorted versions of the MOQ's levels. Never seen one that
> deserved anything less than contempt. I think they are invariably
> based on misconceptions. I just can't tell you how much it buggs me.
You are busy these days so this is merely a declaration of agreement.
> I honestly don't understand this. How does disagreement with those who
> would confuse the top tow levels lead me into the S/O intellect camp?
> And what is the S/O intellect camp? There is no middle ground between
> what and what? How does my defense of the social level automatically
> become S/O? I really think you have to be specific. What did I ever
> say that leds you to this conclusion? I mean, why not respond to
> something specific that I wrote? This is not an evasion. I swear. I
> honestly don't know what you're talking about.
Not my strong side fetching quotes and such, but the last was you
saying that you scoffed at the "manipulation of symbols" definition,
this must necessarily include the mind- or thinking definitions. This
added to your many (splendid) inputs on the early Greeks - not to
speak of the "What comes first" input - strongly indicates a support
for a S/O-definition. I can't for the life of me see a compromise here,
but let me know.
On Lila Blewitt.
> I disagree. Consider our court appointed President. He seemed
> perfectly happy to disregard the wishes of the voters in Florida and
> at the UN. The administration ...
... snip,snip ...
I enjoy these dogfights between you and Platt over American politics,
but to me they sound a bit theatrical, as if you two - respectively - see
a military coup and a communist revolution as imminent. Maybe I am
a little on the conservative side (over here), but that doesn't mar our
general agreement over the MOQ however
> Bo said:
> I use you phrase ...I basically agree with ..you about Lila Blewitt,
> she does not have any opinion about the value of democracy, free press
> ..etc. they are imperceptible to her, but even so she is
> influenced/dominated by intellect which pervades our societies through
> and through.
> dmb says:
> Again, I disgree. She can't be both oblivious to and dominated by
> intellectual values. That's just a blatant contradiction.
A little facetiously: Maybe Lila's relationship with intellect can be
compared to the Captain's with society. He don't like company, but at
times he is forced to (the Robert Redford episode).
> The phrase
> "intellectually nowhere" is one Pirsig uses to describe Lila. I am
> extremely frustrated that no one seems able or willing to accept this.
> I still don't see any good reason for such a rejection. His
> description is consistent with the things she says and does. Its
> consistent with his hierarchy of levels.
As the LILA argument goes I agree completely with you about Lila B,
particularly as it underpins our not-yet-agreed-upon definition of
intellect
Sincerely
Bo
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 : Sat Aug 23 2003 - 08:33:16 BST