Ron:
> I mean, why not just believe in god if you want to believe
> in something that can't be understood?
Marsha:
No one is asking you to participate in magical thinking,
or to believe in any kind of independent deity. I think Bo
tries to be very rational in his explanation, but he is bound
to fail for those who demand 'real' rationality.
You may be very satisfied with "expanded rationality",
but leave the door open for greater possibilities, or at
least leave the door open for those who wish more for
you.
Ron:
I thank you for that sentiment and I do try, in fact I respect an answer
like that. It was an excellent explanation. But Bo has always been
of the ilk that this sort of explanation was nonsense. Which is why I've
always been more than alittle confused.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Sun, September 5, 2010 2:36:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Able to change well.
>
> Ron,
>
> And do you want the "honest explanation" presented
> within the boundaries of Aristotelian logic? Can I say
> it has been deeply intuited as such, that it came to me
> as a bolt of lightening? Or it creates for me the greatest
> harmony? Can I say having had unpatterned experiences
> has convinced me that there is a quality experience which
> is a knowing above all static levels? An experience that
> come to know all static patterns as temporary events.
>
> Some kinds of knowledge is not easily converted into words...
> I believe this is why the MoQ is so difficult. How do you try to
> explain in patterns that which is beyond all static patterns?
>
> So what kind of an "honest explanation" would satisfy you?
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Sep 5, 2010, at 2:11 PM, X Acto wrote:
>
>> Marsha,
>> I agree, The problem I think is calling one true and one false.
>> but that is a failing of the interpretive factor, now a dialog
>> on what makes one or the other better or more valuable
>> would bring us all closer to a richer understanding of both,
>> But as far as I have been able to coax from Bo, this is
>> not his interest, it's the either/or all or nothin kind of
>> endeavor.
>>
>> Believe me, all I ever wanted was a honost explanation of why
>> it's better.
>> "It just is" , never has worked for me, when I was a kid or now.
>>
>> -Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Sent: Sun, September 5, 2010 1:41:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Able to change well.
>>
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2010, at 1:26 PM, X Acto wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> @ Lila has just been published. A metaphysics is delineated. A question may
>>> be
>>
>>
>>
>>> asked, how does SOM, which did all that good work in Zen and... fit in?
>>> It's a legitimate question.
>>> Bodvar feels there has been a cop out and the fruits of Zen and... are left
>>> rotting on the vine.
>>> He feels SOM did great things and now it's been dissolved. This seems like
>>> an
>
>
>>> injustice doesn't it?
>>> SODV attempts to indicate that SOM is alive and well.
>>> Bodvar thinks Robert Pirsig is playing slippery eel. He knows he's wrong
>>> but he
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> won't admit it and make himself look inferior to Bodvar.
>>> Now it's personal. It's about integrity. Here's one: It's Phaedrus who's
>>> been
>
>
>>> betrayed. Robert Pirsig has done the dirty and is getting away with it.
>>> Bodvar IS Phaedrus now and he's not going to allow it. He'll show 'em.
>>> But no one is backing him up. No one understands. They are all cowards and
>>> cheats. It's not persecution, they really aren't up to it.
>>> This town ain't big enough for two metaphysics. There's a gonna be a
> showdown.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron:
>>> It's a legitimate "showdown" thats been requested from Bodvar but all he's
>>> ever
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> been able to muster
>>> is an arguement based in the interpretive factor. Nothing presented from a
>>> philosophical perspective
>>> on it's own merits.
>>> Lets call a spade a spade and not a shovel, lets place cowardice where it
>>> belongs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Marsha:
>> Why must it be either/or? Bo should be able to spend the rest of his life
>> on
>> the MD
>>
>> finding the best words to support his point-of-view. A point-of-view that I
>> too
>>
>> came
>>
>> to but from a different direction, and now a point-of-view I share with
>> him.
>> Either/or?
>> Isn't it about getting beyond needing to declare this or that? Showdown is
>> a
>> step
>>
>> backwards.
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
___
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
