Andre, Just to mention Bo and Platt doesn't make me a snake in the grass. They both were on this list for many, many years and spoke on many subjects. Platt's Principles of the MoQ alone are far superior to anything you ever wrote on the subject of the MoQ. Get over yourself.
Marsha On May 11, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha to Arlo: > > But this is a list devoted to metaphysics - the nature of reality - > so bottom line: there is no-thingness to know and no-self to know it... > > Bo and Platt leave and everybody forgets that SOM has a major flaw. > > Andre: > The flaw lies with you Marsha. When you say 'there is no-thingness to know > and no-self to know it' you are merely forgetting what this MOQ is about. As > Phaedrus argues: "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the > sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of > these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or > there isn't any metaphysics". (LILA, p 66). > You are once again confusing DQ with sq. Metaphysics is a statement, an idea > about the nature of reality and not reality itself. > > And as far as your second statement is concerned: this MOQ IS an intellectual > expression of Phaedrus' expansion of rationality so hard fought for and > argued for in ZMM and worked out in a metaphysical framework in LILA. > This MOQ is an attempt at a correction of this flaw. It is something you > still don't seem to recognize (as well as the two persons you mentioned > above) by adhering to the ridiculous notion that the intellectual level is > SOM. No wonder you are flawed and continue to be lost. > "Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and > since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a > 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical > absurdity" (LILA, ibid) > > As Pirsig clarifies on the AHP tapes regarding this statement: "That is a > kind of a recursive thing where I have defined my own metaphysics as being > absurd. And it's a kind of a Zen stunt, actually to say; I am telling you all > this stuff and as soon as you understand it [which Marsha clearly doesn't] > you better forget it because the real Quality is not a thing I can tell you > about". ( AHP, tape two, side one) > > "The central reality of mysticism, (Marsha's no-thingness, no-selfness)the > reality that Phaedrus had called 'Quality' in his first book, is not a > metaphysical chess piece". > > Are you reading this Marsha? ___ 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
