On Jun 19, 2010, at 2:24 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote: > And I'd be fine with that, I could then say "Mr. Pirsig, here is why I think > you are wrong, and why a MOQ is strengthened by including them".
Hi Arlo, It sounds to me like you've made the MoQ a thing to be strengthened. I know how tricky words can be. They can be near impossible to make some important points. But it does sound like you're reifying the MoQ. I do the same thing because of many decades of thinking in terms of objects. It's not JUST language problems. It is often old patterns that have things predefined as independent. That's why I say when I'm in the 'not this, not that' mode I'm doing good, otherwise I might be running on automatic, which by default is subject/object dualism. 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
