Whoa, Nelly Andre, Talk about misinterpretation and projection. On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > John to Andre: > > I wasn't saying DQ isn't real. I was saying that sq isn't. The realization > that sq isn't real, is what lies at the heart of a true MoQ realization. > > Andre: > Ahh, is this a trend I notice? Marsha, Mark and now you, John, suggest that > 'all' is ever-changing and, I presume, therefore not real. Only DQ is. > > As Mark remarked:'The pattern is continually changing depending on who is > doing the thinking. Even the way in which the pattern is changing, is > changing. Even this change is changing. That fact that things are changing > is changing. Change is not static, it is dynamic'.
[Mark] Are you trying to form an enemy camp? Are you a politician, by chance? What are you going to call this deviant group, the anti-MoQ Pirsig Bashers? I noticed you did not use my whole quote, any reason for that? I don't want to get into this whole thing about reality, since we often seem to end up there. One man's reality is another man's illusion. Please pay attention to context and intention. How does John use the word real? > > Well, I have said some silly things on this discuss but, really, this takes > the cake. Where, may I ask does Pirsig suggest that sq is not real? Or > doesn't Mr. Pirsig matter anymore? [Mark] What is with this tactic of bringing in Pirsig bashing? SQ is part of the metaphysical division that Pirsig uses. You tell me if it is Real. For Pirsig, SQ is a manner of division, he presents it rhetorically. We are speaking metaphysics in case you have forgotten. I bring this up in my previous post which seems to have left you speachless. The question is: is it useful (not is it real)? > > John: > Hmm... that does make sense to me and I think clears things up a bit. So > arguing this with you has helped me, imo. Do you get what I mean by sq's > meaning containing the implication of DQ? > > Andre: > Thank you for helping me/you John, I appreciate it. As for the latter > part:no, I do not get what you mean. Static patterns do not 'contain the > implication of DQ'. Static patterns do not change in and of themselves. It's > values don't change by themselves. Only Dynamic Quality can alter them and > if that doesn't happen they keep on saying the same things year after year. > Remember the Zuni brujo story? [Mark] Yes, the analogy is one of change and persistence. Dynamic quality does not persist as you imply by your construing it as an object in your paragraph above. I guess this is the static dynamic you are talking about. What exactly is that? I would say that the expressions of the dynamic are incorporated into the static; perhaps the word implication is appropriate here. Dynamic Quality is expressed in the static, how's that for a topic of discussion? Static results from the dynamic (perhaps another source of contention). > > 'If you had asked the brujo what ethical principles he was following he > probably wouldn't have been able to tell you. He wouldn't have understood > what you were talking about. He was just following some vague sense of > 'betterness' that he couldn't have defined if he wanted to.'(LILA, p 118) > I was almost reluctant to quote anything from Pirsig since I strongly > believe that you and Marsha, Mark and Mary (forgotten anyone?...perhaps Joe, > who considers DQ to be emotions or is it the other way around?)consider his > writings on the MOQ obsolete because ancient, old-fashioned, superseded by > your own, far more powerful interpretation and thereby creating far more > explanatory power for the entire universe and personal living of life in the > dreariness of living it (paraphrasing Freud). [Mark] Oh, oh, now we are debating the emotional v the intellectual. Can one be emotionally intellectual? Seems like it here. You are the one who is not staying true to MoQ but creating some kind of beast. Maybe Pirsig will get mad at you if you miss quote him. Talk about dreary and literal. Yes, dynamic quality is expressed in the emotions. From the emotions comes the intellectual and static-ness. Jumping off a hot stove is pretty emotional, where is the intellect? There, what have you to say about that? Perhaps too touchy-feely for you, huh. What are you some kind of Victorian? And I was told we were progressing. > > I am almost at a loss for words. Change for change's sake. Wow! Where am I > going to hang my hat? [Mark] For Heaven's sake, why are you changing the subject. Are you trying to define the discussion here? Are you fighting dragons? Now you are proposing a God in the form of dynamic quality that goes around changing things. How do we pray to such a thing to bring things into our favor? Will sacrifices do? I'm speechless, now you want children sacrificed. Wow! Where am I going to hang my hat? > > Cheers, Mark > 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 > 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
