Jon and all:>
JON:
"....July is now almost finished, and we don't seem near any
> resolution.
> I'll be glad to continue in the MD forum, or maybe the issues will find
> a place in
> the new website project you mentioned (I am interested)."
RICK:
Yes... no resolution, again. But at the very minimum, at least we got
everyone's point of view down on the record.
I've always thought one of the strangest things about this forum is that we
all (pretty much) claim to agree with Pirsig's philosophy and support the
MoQ, but at the same time, we seem to agree on very little about its
particulars. It has to make you wonder....
My website project is under construction (and I welcome suggestions and
advice), unfortunately I know very little about webdesign and I'm in the
process of moving, so it's slow going.... but I'll post a message in the MD
when it's up and running.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
> JON:
> I'll have to re-read Lila carefully to see if this expression "Q- event"
> is an invention of our own (as I suspect), or something used by Pirsig
> [can anyone help?]. Either way, my view is that Quality is an *ongoing*
> process.
RICK:
Pirsig refers to the Quality Event often in ZMM, I'm not sure how often the
term comes up in LILA....
> JON:
> The specific question to which I answered MU:
> "Is the art of discerning the levels Science or Emotivism?"
>
> The "Science or Emotivism" issue was stated explicitly as the header for
> this month's programme (possibly against Rick's better judgment).
RICK:
Yes, I disliked the program title... I thought it was misleading and
distracted our efforts.... as for science/emotivism. I think we all agree
that it is a false dilemma and the two are reliant on each other (nobody, as
far as I recall ever argued against that). However, I'd prefer an active
"both" with an explanation to boot rather that a vague "Mu" and a shrug.
JON:
> I consider 'neither' and 'both' to be MU answers, that reject the
> binary options of the either/or questions.
> By giving MU answers with explanations, Einstein and Pirsig didn't solve
> the problems posed by the questions but dissolved them.
RICK:
So MU is a category of response??? And not a response itself??? After all,
"neither" does not equal "both". And if a Mu response requires choosing one
of these options and explaining it anyway, why bother "Mu"ing at all?
Thanks for the great discussion,
Rick
When confronted by a difficult problem, you can solve it more easily by
reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" -
Anonymous
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST