Hi John, On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:21 AM, John Carl wrote:
> I agree Marsha, and I was thinking some of the charges of "confusing" flying > around here might stem from the fact that people are oriented differently > and helped at times by koans, and other times metaphysical explication. > > The problem arises when they read the koans as metaphysical explication, and > vice versa. > > Like I sometimes have a problem with your "not this, not that" because I'm > reading it as metaphysics, when actually its more of a koanic formulation > than a metaphysical one. When I am in the "not this, not that" mode it is a good place, and it certainly is a metaphysical utterance, the basis of which is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable: Quality. > >>> [Arlo] >>> Then Pirsig should've written koans, and not a metaphysics. >> >> >> >> Marsha: >> I think in writing ZMM and LILA, he did both. >> >> > "How did you know to fix the light at the switch?" > > "It was just obvious." > > "It wasn't obvious to me." > > "Well... you need some underlying knowledge." > > "Then it WASN'T obvious, eh?" > > Now some people find that sort of dialogue confusing - I term such people > "them". The people who find it illuminating, I call "us". Geez. There is no 'them' and 'us'. What the heck are you saying? Marsha ___ 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
