On Apr 15, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Marsha] > Saying "IT does anything" misrepresents. > > [Arlo] > My point exactly. Saying "The MOQ speaks" (apart from a poetic narrative) > misrepresents. Thanks. Or is this a case of now saying "The MOQ says" is > okay, but "it says" is not? (Pirsig also uses the rhetoric "it says" in his > narrative, btw.)
Marsha: It makes no difference to me. Either is fine with me. It seems trivial to me the way you present it. > [Marsha] > But I can say I am trying to move away from dualistic subject-object > point-of-view towards an interconnectedness that conceptualization and > language occludes. > > [Arlo] > There is no doubt that pre-intellectual experience precedes "language", but > don't confuse the enlightened abandonment of language with championing > obfuscation. In other words, there is a time not to speak, but this is not > the same as speaking incoherently. Marsha: And don't confuse saying something coherently, with saying anything of value. I do not feel a need to conform to a particular standard of what is considered acceptable rhetoric by a language nerd. The convention of what is acceptable and proper changes. Read Wittgensstein's 'Tractatus' and then let's speak about coherency. How about Nietzsche's 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'? I'm not buying your line of baloney. > [Marsha] > He is very skillful in considering the listener. But he is a Boddhisatva, so > his ultimate intention is to work towards the enlightenment of all sentient > beings. I think that enlightenment is to achieve ultimate non-dualistic > insight and wisdom > > [Arlo] > And he achieves this by brilliant clarity in his words, not being confusing > and incoherent. While I am sure he would agree that words ultimately are > analogies to describe a pre-intellectual experience, when he chooses his > words he does so with elegant precision and clarity. > > Again, there is a difference between an artful mastery of language, and a > befuddled incoherence. Marsha: Without knowing the topic, or the audience, your comments are meaningless. It is one thing to speak to a group of people on the Four Noble Truths, and another to discuss Nagarjuna's no-thesis view, or why the Buddha never uttered a word, or the intricacies of the two-truth debate between Tsongkhapa and Gorampa. You are sounding naive. ___ 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
