On 7/19/11 2:37 AM, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andre to Dave: > When Marsha uses this 'ever changing' stuff with regards to static patterns > she uses it in the sense of precisely that: ever changing. Marsha does not > accept a difference between DQ and sq. For her these are interchangeable. Now > this, from a MOQ point of view is plain silly and very confusing and she > continues to wriggle herself around it. > > You're one step away from nihilism when you continually claim that ultimately > all is an impermanent illusion anyway. I mean, why bother? In 50 years we'll > all be dead so what are we arguing about? It is so defeatist and kills > discussion all the time. Perhaps you can appreciate the silliness of this > stance. Dave Nihilism has been a primary Western criticism of Buddhism for ages. But Marsha did not choose to use Zen Buddhist philosophy as a model for a Western metaphysics, Pirsig did. She is merely exploring and translating her understanding of the Eastern background of the work. The problem is that for most Westerners, Eastern religion/philosophy is pretty convoluted and obtuse. So if Marsha is confused, as well she might be, the confusion is a result of the source material's. > Or do you agree with Marsha that DQ is sq and sq is DQ? Dave I understand that if you look at the MoQ as a mystical monism where ultimate reality is one and any metaphysical splitting is degenerate, then yeah those statements make perfect sense-nonsense. This is the way of Zen. > Just another insert Dave. When I talked about "Leave it in the weather > for a number of years and yeah, the changes are noticeable because > dynamic influences occur at subatomic levels all the time. Dave But are these "dynamic influences" you speak of DQ or SQ? How do you know? >But for > pragmatic reasons the notion of using 'ever changing' when you mean > 'stable' or 'static' is confusing because misleading"... I should also > have added the 'forces' of regeneration, the stabilizing quality to > latch the advances made. It are these repeated patterns that make them > stable, recognizable. > > To add to the confusion Marsha has gotten herself into is that she now > denies DQ as being change. She says: "I consider DQ to be indeterminate > - unknowable, undefinable, and undividable - unpatterned". Dave Again in attributing all change to Dynamic Quality, How do you know? Pirsig at some point explained that static patterns can be lower case "dynamic", again how can a normal person tell whether change is "Dynamic" or "dynamic."? I mean short of being insane or a mystic. And how do you tell the difference? > > Now, on its own this is a bit more like it. BUT she still considers > DQ=sq and sq=DQ. She has said so repeatedly. She considers herself to be > an ever changing pattern of...within a stable whatever. You work it out > Dave because I can't anymore. > > I agree with dmb: "sigh". "Sigh" all both of you want but her interpretation is predicable extension of Pirsig's work and Zen Buddhism. Dave 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
