On Mar 26, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Andre to Marsha: > By saying DQ=sq you are undermining Pirsig's MOQ. > > Marsha to Andre: > > No, Andre, you are misinterpreting what I said, which was "sq is not other > than DQ." The fundamental nature of sq is DQ. > > Andre(on Mar,21,2011) referring to : > Marsha (Dec 18, 2010 to Tim): 'DQ is sq, sq is DQ. Most of us know this...' > and further in the post she repeats it: 'Right. DQ is sq, sq is DQ.
Marsha: Yes, I did start by stating it as such, but others found it confusing. I have since revised, and corrected the state many, many, many times. > Andre now: > So what is it going to be then Marsha? Have you said it or haven't you? By > saying that 'sq is not other than DQ' you are simply repeating yourself. How > can I (mis)interpret this in any other way? Marsha: As I now state it, it is sq is not other than DQ. The fundamental nature of sq is DQ. I've always advised that I'd be looking for better words, and I did. > You are saying the differentiated(sq)is not other than the undifferentiated > (DQ). Marsha: See above. And I still reserve the right to change the statement if I find a better way to state it. > Why bother with the two terms then? Marsha: You figure that out. > This is the same as saying:the written is not other than the unwritten, the > said is not other than the unsaid, the thought is not other than the > un-thought, the lived is not other than the un-lived. Marsha: I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you study the dangling quote I posted until you agree with me. > This renders every dynamic valuation (changed into sq)) meaningless: nihilism. Marsha: I am pretty busy today; maybe you and dmb can talk amongst yourself. ___ 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
