On Oct 12, 2010, at 7:54 PM, X Acto wrote: > > > >>>> 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. >>> > > Dan: >> 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. > >> 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. > > Ron: > That may be Marsha, but you don't even consider the questions, many of them > the very same you and others raise, as being confirmed and validated by > Robert > Pirsig, you consider them interpretations alone. You neglect that these > interpretations have been validated by RMP and the conclusions drawn from > > these validations run contrary to your own interpretations. > Thats fine and dandy, but you really can't claim that your own interpretation > is closer to Roberts intended meaning, given that he has verified both Dan's > and Daves interpretations. Unless of course you have been at the conferences > and have been coresponding with RMP. > > No? > > then perhaps you should'nt be taking such a hard line in defence > of what is mainly YOUR own interpretations, ones that have NOT > been validated by RMP. > > > himself >
Marsha: I don't think I am taking a hard line defense towards any of my interpretations. I am trying to explore the relationship between the MoQ and Mahayana Buddhism. I do believe this connection has been acknowledge by RMP. ___ 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
