Ok, Andre, it does clarify it. I'm familiar with dependent arising so I understand the underlying concept. I just didn't quite grasp yer nomenclature there.
But I'm glad I got you into it, because it raises a question with my understanding of the MoQ - Thus, as my friend, who can read Chinese, said the other day, what is > written by Lao Tzu is not the > proper translation. It says directly: beauty IS ugliness, good IS evil. But > to say this to a Westerner > 'lost in our linear linguistic translation' this makes no sense. Thus, to > make it somehow palatable and > understandable it is poetically translated as: > Yes, I agree to my western "ears" that makes no sense. It's like saying there is no such thing as Quality. > > 'Therefore having and not having arise together. > Difficult and easy complement each other. > Long and short contrast each other. > High and low rest upon each other. > Voice and sound harmonize each other. > Front and back follow one another'. > > These dualisms do not 'oppose' nor 'confront' each other. They imply each > other. Complement each other > because they arise together. The one IS the other at the same time. Thus > the no-two dualism. > > What Mr. Pirsig MOQ has done in the MOQ is the same thing with regards to > the conventional idea of > subjects and objects! > Isn't the MoQ a monism? Isn't Quality, Good? How can one say Quality is bad and good? That takes away the value of Quality. > And,please remember that he wrote for a Western audience > continuing/improving mainstream American > pragmatic philosophy. > > imho. > > I hope this clarifies it for you. > > Enough so that I beg for more! John 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
