From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 19:18:38 BST
Bo
You said:
"You also know so well that as Pheadrus operated at the SOM "level"
all talk about pre-intellect translates directly into pre-SOM,
consequently the intellectual level of the MOQ corresponds to the S/O
divide. The indications are overwhelming, but some prestige forbids
people to admit it ;-("
and
"You may invent strange theories, but the sole purpose seems to be of
NOT agreeing with me ...phew!."
Paul:
I apologise for the tone of this post but I'm annoyed by this attitude.
If there is prestige at stake, I think you ought to reflect on who it is
that has spent the best part of 7 years defending an opinion about a
philosophy which many on this forum and the author himself have strongly
rejected. I can see that the author's published rejection of SOLAQI must
have been a major blow to your prestigious position as an "MOQ Expert".
I find it incredible that, instead of considering the possibility that
perhaps Robert Pirsig does actually know what he wanted to write and is
capable of maintaining a consistent philosophical standpoint, you now
claim that he has got his own metaphysics wrong, that his first book is
largely invalid as it is "written from a SOM perspective", that some of
Lila is obviously misguided and that his letters and annotations are
some kind of recantation of a standpoint which nobody but yourself seems
to have taken.
I take issue with your "prestige" dismissal of arguments such as those
offered by myself. In the MD archives I have read post after post of
well reasoned, logical, articulate, informed refutations of your idea
yet it continues to appear in almost every thread as THE PROBLEM which
must be resolved. Most of these arguments can claim support from any of
Pirsig's publications and yet you feel that they are "strange theories,
[with] the sole purpose...of NOT agreeing with [you]."
It is clear to me that you will never let this drop and you are of
course under no pressure or obligation to do so, and your contribution
to the MD is clearly valued, but may I ask you to afford your peers a
little more integrity and ability and consider that there are better
reasons for the lack of support for your ideas than deluding yourself
that it is simply a matter of "prestige".
Also, this...
"The subjective part of the SOM = DQ and the objective part = SQ
makes the MOQ into some Squonktailian rubbish that there are
thirteen to a dozen of these days ....even worse than making the
MOQ - DQ included - a STATIC intellectual pattern."
...is a very low quality argument. We deserve better.
Finally, consider the title of this thread, does that not say anything
to you?
Paul
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 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 19:20:56 BST