Andre/Dan,
Besides offering a more satisfying experience of living, my present interest is in the MoQ's relationship with Buddhism. I will continue to pursue this connection. Namaste, Marsha On Oct 12, 2010, at 9:21 PM, Dan Glover wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:56 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Oct 12, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Dan Glover wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:39 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Marsha to Andre: >>>>> >>>>> Maybe no more an authority than anyone else that has read ZMM and LILA. >>>>> Or >>>>> do claim that your judgements are privileged above others for some reason. >>>>> >>>>> Andre: >>>>> I used the term 'authority' because you used it. My 'judgements' are >>>>> based on the >>>>> Annotations in LC (which clarify specific parts of ZMM and LILA), >>>>> specifically >>>>> annotations 129,130,131,132,133 and 135. >>>>> >>>>> When you read them carefully there is very little room for 'personal >>>>> judgements' nor >>>>> 'interpretations' nor 'personal opinions'. They are pretty >>>>> straightforward comments/ >>>>> clarifications/observations/judgements from the man whose MOQ we are >>>>> discussing here. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> Your 'judgements' are based on your 'interpretations' of annotations >>>> 129,130,131,132,133 and 135. >>>> It is also your 'opinion' that they are "pretty straightforward >>>> comment/clarifications/observations/judgements." >>>> Your 'opinion' also presumes RMP'S communications skills are absolute and >>>> perfect. I do not believe >>>> he has claimed such an infallible skill. >>>> >>>> DanG was lucky enough to be able to ask RMP for clarification based on his >>>> confusion. The rest >>>> of us, with different questions, have not been so fortunate. So while you >>>> may be happy with your >>>> interpretation of the LC annotations, they may not address questions >>>> considered by others. So >>>> your posts sound to me mostly condescending gibberish based on illusion. >>> >>> Hi Marsha >>> >>> I've always believed that we make our own luck. LILA'S CHILD was a lot >>> of work, especially for someone with my background. I have no formal >>> education to speak of. And the idea for LC wasn't mine to begin >>> with... Bodvar Skutvik talked me into it. But once i started, I saw >>> the value there and put as much time into the project as was >>> practical. Actually, I neglected other areas of my life in order to >>> pursue it so in a sense what I did wasn't practical at all. >> >> Marsha: >> Your great sacrifice and accomplishment has been acknowledge >> many times in this forum. I have read LC and consulted it many >> times. Nice job! > > Dan: > Sarcasm doesn't become you. > >> >> >>> >>> I think Robert Pirsig's annotations are good touching stones to keep >>> in mind when it comes to the MOQ. And yes, another person would have >>> asked different (and most probably) better questions. I asked several >>> people to look over the annotations. But no one seemed to have any >>> ideas at the time. Magnus did send me an email but honestly his >>> comments didn't make sense in the context of the MOQ. They still >>> don't. >>> >>> You may not like Andre's style but so far as I can see, his comments >>> are spot on. I appreciate it when people like Andre, Paul Turner, >>> David Buchanan, Horse, and other thinkers find value in LILA'S CHILD. >>> Thank you all. But as far as me being lucky? No. There is no luck >>> involved. Just plain hard work and persistence. >> >> Marsha: >> You may think Andre's comments are "spot on". That's your opinion. >> I just don't think that the understanding of the MoQ can end with the LC, not >> Andre's interpretation, and not even your interpretations of the annotations >> as the LC's author. For all the questions you asked there are many you >> didn't. Maybe you can concede that much. And since it's publications maybe >> many new questions have arisen. I hate to see the MoQ limited by the few >> questions that made it into your book. I'd like to probe the MoQ deeply, and >> I will not accept that all answers have already be established. > > Dan: > I used to enjoy reading your posts, Marsha. No more. All I see is > evasiveness and vindictiveness. If you really want to probe the MOQ > deeply, why are you such a b about it? Don't worry about answering me. > I am done with this discussion. > > Thanks for nothing > > Dan > >> >> Thanks again for hard work and persistence. >> >> >> 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
