Andre,

After reading your post (at the bottom 6:41 pm) I didn't know what point you 
were trying to make.   If you were simply asking if I thought myself to be a 
mystic, my answer is no.   


Marsha  




> On Mar 19, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> 
> Andre:
> Hello MOQ'ers!
> Those who are left on this discuss to talk about Pirsig's MOQ are now called 
> dogmatists! Any attempt and/or counter argument citing Pirsig and other 
> supporting evidence (e.g. James) used by these dogmatic MOQ contributors to 
> point to the misconceptions/misunderstandings/dead ends/irrelevancies to 
> Pirsig's MOQ  by other posters are in their turn asked to justify their 
> premise through misunderstanding or simple ignorance or bloody minded 
> stubbornness ( Mark suggesting to dmb that he (Mark) has 'yet to see some 
> fundamental premises of MoQ coming through your posts'... obviously never 
> even read the archives and dmb's impressive energy put in every post he has 
> posted!!). This is really frustrating and insulting!
> 
> So when Marsha asks me to clarify my point ( Marsha confuses DQ with sq) she 
> claims "I do not get it'.
> And John is still after confirmation of his 'Absolute' Roycean flavour.
> 
> I am sorry but to have the tables turned on 'dogmatists' for proof and 
> supportive evidence whilst quoting this evidence from its original source and 
> supporting ideas mentioned in that original source and then ( by the so 
> called non-dogmatists) to still claim ignorance is intellectual dishonesty at 
> its worst.
> 
> My only recourse left is to urge Mark, Marsha, John etc to read ZMM and LILA. 
> It is that simple. Then we can have a conversation.





>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
>>  
>> Andre:
>> Are you by any chance trying to echo the way Mr. Pirsig dealt with the 
>> mystic's objections to a Metaphysics of Quality Marsha? (Chapter 5, pp 67/8) 
>> It seems to me that your comments are an attempt to reflect a dynamic 
>> perspective? I also seem to remember that you, as Bodvar did, see Pirsig's 
>> MOQ as Reality. In other words the MOQ IS experience, the MOQ IS Quality, 
>> the MOQ IS Reality... . Is this the 'paradox' you are hinting at...that from 
>> your perspective it is possible to 'ache'?
>> 
>> You consider yourself a mystic Marsha?
>> 
>> From this perspective it is impossible to be 'aching for the people in 
>> Japan' since 'aching', 'people' and 'Japan' make no sense from a dynamic 
>> perspective. The conjunctive relation 'for' also makes no sense from this 
>> perspective since Quality is designated as 'the continuing flux', the 
>> undifferentiated aesthetic continuum'. These aforementioned nouns and their 
>> relations are static representations/ abstractions... you know, as posted on 
>> this list before in terms of the 'ladle' and the 'water'.
>> 
>> Sounds like you're quite impressed with this perspective Marsha, a 
>> perspective within which you seem to feel quite comfortable. Reminds me of 
>> the time I worked in psychiatry when a colleague (psychiatric nurse) told me 
>> that, in one way, it was wonderful to be labeled insane... because the 
>> person was never held responsible for their actions or verbalizations. No, 
>> it was their 'insanity' talking and controlling...!
>> 
>> Mr. Pirsig knows something about this state:
>> 'The only time he had been more manic about an abstract idea was when he had 
>> first hit upon the idea of undefined Quality itself. The consequences of 
>> that first mania had been disastrous, and so now, this time, he told himself 
>> just to calm down and dig in. It was, for him, a great Dynamic breakthrough, 
>> but if he wanted to hang on to it he had better do some static latching as 
>> quickly and thoroughly as possible.(LILA, p 161)
>> 
>> Sounds like very sound advice to me. After all we are here to talk about 
>> Pirsig's MOQ which is a static intellectual pattern of value. No paradox of 
>> any sort. Aching is a biological response to quality.
>> 
>> Sticks and stones wont break my bones... (a la Tom Waits).

 

>>> On Mar 17, 2011, at 4:33 PM, MarshaV wrote:
>>> 
>>> Marsha to Andre:
>>> Bugger off!  Do you understand the word paradox?
___
 

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

Reply via email to