Marsha said: I am concerned that the patterns are seen as independent (inherently existing) entities, just a new name for objects. This I think is the wrong view. RMP has stated that there are no thing-in-themselves in the MOQ, and he has mentioned Buddhism and emptiness, though he has not stated my interpretation directly. Bo replied: ...all patterns are static quality and in the Q context they are independent and exists very much in themselves.
dmb says:No, Bo. Marsha is right. You've distorted the MOQ so that is merely becomes a new kind of objectivity or, as I've tried to explain it to you previously, a new kind of essentialism. This mistake goes to the heart of your SOL and so it's no wonder that Pirsig rejects that misinterpretation. This wouldn't be so offensive if you didn't keep insisting that everybody else is so wrong about the MOQ, including Pirsig himself. Ask yourself a question. How strange it is to reject even the author's own view? _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Hotmail®…more than just e-mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
