Marsha to Andre:
I disagree with you.
I can take your comments out of different posts and out of different
context sand string them together and switch words in my response to you.
Andre:
This is your wriggling Marsha. Your statements are quite clear and
consistent over many of your posts. There is no 'out of context', and I
agree with you...there is a stringing together (on my part) of your
statements. But I must emphasize: they are consistent. And consistently
you say:
'I not only agree with Mark that language is a kind of prison, but I also think
patterns are a kind of prison'.
Next you say to Mark:
"I could continue: Static quality is Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality is static
quality. Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality is not other
than static quality".
Now what are we to make of this? Put two and two together and you say that
Dynamic Quality is 'a kind of prison'.
This appears to me to be an enormity. An extremely wicked interpretation of
Pirsig's MOQ. In fact your position is the exact antithesis of what the MOQ is.
What will you do next? Deny that your 'patterns' are not what you mean by
'static quality'? That you do not really mean that DQ=sq? That I have it all
wrong? That we continue to misunderstand you? That we are really at fault? That
my interpretation is 'a reflection of [my] own static patterns' as you
suggested yesterday?
How will you duck Marsha? Are you going to give is your standard response beginning with:
"I am ever changing patterns of blah, blah blah..."?
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
