Hi Horse,
Thank you for your thoughtful post.  I am all for Pirsig's MoQ, and do
my best to stay consistent within it.  I left for about a year, and
missed the Bo bruhaha.  However, I do know that he was sometimes
obstinant.  Trying to encapsulate the intellectual level into one of
the tools of the intellect is demeaning if nothing else.  The
intellect creates concepts which become static, but that is not the
intellectual level.

This is just my personal opinion, and I will not discuss this topic
anymore.  It is a path with a dead end.  MoQ is anything but dead and
burried in a static grave.

Cheers,
Mark

On 1/26/12, Horse <horse@dark...> wrote:
> Hi Mark
>
> On 25/01/2012 15:54, 118 wrote:
>> Hi Horse,
>>
>> Yes, well put.  Sometimes we need a foil with which to strengethen our
>> resolve.  If we understand how MoQ can be misinterpreted it gives us
>> ammunition for consolidating it.
>
> First let me say that I like Marsha - my criticisms of what she writes
> don't always come across like that but it is true.
> I find that trying to work out what Marsha is saying much of the time is
> rarely a productive endeavour.
> There are some things that she is obviously saying because she repeats
> them ad nauseam.
> This forum is, primarily, for discussion of Pirsig's MoQ and the problem
> with giving a platform to every nut-job and weirdo (and I most
> definitely do NOT include Marsha here) who misinterprets Pirsig is that
> there are a lot more of them than those that, in my opinion, do
> understand Pirsig.
> I would rather that time was spent here discussing and expanding upon
> Pirsigs original work and not having to waste time countering the
> arguments of nutters and fruitcakes.
> Personally I don't find this unreasonable in a forum whose main raison
> d'etre is the discussion of Pirsig's MoQ.
>
>> MoQ is not "whatever we want it to
>> be".  This is the relativism that Marsha seeks to imbue this
>> metaphysics with.
>
> I don't think any metaphysics is or can be "whatever we want it to be".
> In order for a metaphysics to work it needs to be rigorous and defined -
> otherwise it's just irrelevant musings. This doesn't mean that it must
> be static and unchanging just that any changes need to be an improvement
> not retrograde. Marsha's explorations do little to advance the MoQ (in
> my opinion) but I don't think she is doing harm.
>
>> I am not sure if Marsha's mind is closed, her participation is based
>> more on the social aspects of this forum (IMO) and that is not a
>> problem.
>
> As I said above, this forum is primarily for the discussion of Pirsigs
> MoQ and this is, for the most part, an intellectual endeavour. Sure,
> there are social aspects to it but if those social aspects threaten to
> undermine the intellectual aspects then they need to be reduced or, as a
> last resort, removed. This is not something I like to do but it is
> sometimes necessary - and before Marsha says anything I am not making
> veiled threats against her or even dropping heavy hints!
> I have no problem with MD having a good social quality underpinning -
> this is entirely in line with the MoQ - but the Intellectual content is
> primary.
>
>> I am not sure if dumbness applies as much as "neediness",
>> and we all have some that.
>
> My remark about "...Pirsig is just too frigging dumb to understand" was
> a reference to Pirsig's, not Marsha's, dumbness. This comes from
> some time back when a group of MD participants claimed that Pirsig was
> just too stupid and cowardly to understand the MoQ and only St Bodvar of
> Norway and his acolytes, having received enlightenment, were the true
> heirs to the mysteries of the MoQ!!! He is one of the nutters and
> fruitcakes I was referring to above.
> What annoyed me most about this bunch was that after giving Bodvar 10
> years of space on this forum (and hosting his essays on the MOQ.ORG
> site) to convince others of the merits of his nonsense, when I ask him
> over a period of months to cease being increasingly aggressive, abusive
> and insulting towards everyone who disagreed with him, not only does he
> refuse to do so but claims that I'm being unreasonable in asking him to
> behave reasonably. I also liked Bo and didn't - as his hangers on
> claimed - ban him or try to censor him. I just tried to get him to act
> reasonably and when this failed I took the appropriate steps to make him
> behave reasonably. There is only so much leeway available with the use
> of a keyboard!
>
>> Perhaps the rational arguments presented
>> by others in this forum falls on deaf ears there, but there are others
>> who read the contents of this forum.  That is what I meant by debate.
>> If we all marched lock-step nothing much would happen, IMO, and any
>> newcommers would be presented with dogma rather than exploration.
>
> I'm all for debate on MD as long as it's relevant to Pirsig's MoQ. I
> also have no problem with MD participants pushing the boundaries of the
> MoQ as long as they are able to distinguish between what is reasonable
> and what is not.
> I think you also have to distinguish between dogma and established and
> reasonable belief. Often the accusation of dogma is used by those that
> are unable to convince others of a weak or incorrect position which any
> reasonable person sees as wrong. Just using the term pejoratively makes
> little sense unless you have something to back it up with.
> Sticking to your guns does not make you dogmatic - but it doesn't make
> you right either.
>
>> Having said that, my posts are sometimes on the fringe, but I mean
>> well.  I am always open to corrections.
>
> Glad to hear it Mark. The problem I have with some of your posts is that
> I cannot always see where you are going with them and often when I do I
> don't agree. However, that may well be more my problem than yours and
> I'm not going to stop you speculating - but please keep your
> speculations relevant to Pirsig's MoQ. That's all I ask of anyone on
> this forum.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Horse
>
>> On 1/25/12, Horse<horse@dark...>  wrote:
>>> The Great Bogeyman replies......
>>>
>>> But certainly 4 as Mark has now commented.
>>> You may learn from debate Mark but, as you have already experienced,
>>> Marsha neither learns from debate nor wants to learn from debate.
>>> To learn from debate requires an open mind and Marsha's mind is as
>>> closed as they come - which is why she rarely engages in debate,
>>> preferring instead to repeat herself over and over mantra style.
>>> Marsha is also not here to discuss Pirsig's MoQ - she is here to promote
>>> a variation of the MoQ based on a misinterpretation, but which claims to
>>> be the 'real' MoQ that Pirsig is just too frigging dumb to understand.
>>>
>>> Horse
>>>
>>> On 24/01/2012 22:13, 118 wrote:
>>>> Pirsig here....
>>>>
>>>> I like debate, I learn from it.  Either side can stop the debate by
>>>> not responding.  It takes two to tango! (or maybe three now that Horse
>>>> has put in his opinion).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/24/12, Horse<horse@dark...>   wrote:
>>>>> I doubt this will make any difference to Marsha, Dave - a lot of this
>>>>> is
>>>>> rooted in the SOM as Intellect debacle from some time ago. It doesn't
>>>>> matter how much evidence you present or even if Pirsig himself joined
>>>>> in
>>>>> the conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Horse
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24/01/2012 18:40, david buchanan wrote:
>>>>>> “A Dynamic advance is meaningless unless it can find some static
>>>>>> pattern
>>>>>> with which to protect itself from degeneration back to the conditions
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> existed before the advance was made.  Evolution can't be a continuous
>>>>>> forward movement.  It must be a process of ratchet-like steps in which
>>>>>> there is a Dynamic movement forward up some new incline and then, if
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> result looks successful, a static latching-on of the gain that has
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> made; then another Dynamic advance, then another static latch…” (LILA,
>>>>>> end
>>>>>> of Chapter 11)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sometimes a Dynamic increment goes forward but can find no latching
>>>>>> mechanism and so fails and slips back to a previous latched position.
>>>>>> Whole species and cultures get lost this way. Sometimes a static
>>>>>> pattern
>>>>>> becomes so powerful that it prohibits any Dynamic moves forward. In
>>>>>> both
>>>>>> cases the evolutionary process is halted for a while. But when it's
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> halted the result has been an increase in power to control hostile
>>>>>> forces
>>>>>> or an increase in versatility or both. The increase in versatility is
>>>>>> directed toward DQ. The increase in power to control hostile forces is
>>>>>> directed toward static quality. Without DQ the organism cannot grow.
>>>>>> Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are needed."
>>>>>> (LILA,
>>>>>> end of chapter 11)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When this understanding first broke through in Phaedrus' mind, that
>>>>>> ethics and science had suddenly been integrated into a single system,
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> became so manic he couldn't think of anything else for days. The only
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> he had been more manic about an abstract idea was when he had first
>>>>>> hit
>>>>>> upon the idea of undefined Quality itself. The consequences of that
>>>>>> first
>>>>>> mania had been disastrous, and so now, this time, he told himself just
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> calm down and dig in. It was, for him, a great Dynamic breakthrough,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> if he wanted to hang on to it he had better do some static latching as
>>>>>> quickly and thoroughly as possible." (Lila, end of chapter 12)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of all
>>>>>> order. It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the
>>>>>> stable
>>>>>> condition which  gives man perfect satisfaction. ...Dharma is Quality
>>>>>> itself, the principle of 'rightness' which gives structure and purpose
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding of the
>>>>>> universe which life has created." (LILA, Chapter 30)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No, he did nothing for Quality or the Tao.  What benefited was
>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>> He
>>>>>> showed a way by which reason may be expanded to include elements that
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> previously been unassimilable and thus have been considered
>>>>>> irrational."
>>>>>> (ZAMM, p. 257)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "But now we have with us some concepts that greatly alter the whole
>>>>>> understanding of things. Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific
>>>>>> reality. Quality is the goal of Art." (ZAMM, p. 276)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I want to show that that classic pattern of rationality can be
>>>>>> tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> formal recognition of Quality in its operation." (ZAMM, p. 278)
>>>>>>
>>>
>
> --
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html