Dave,
I've offered quotes on Buddhism from the MoQ Textbook. Maybe you think Anthony is confused and nihilistic? In the MoQ Texbook Anthony writes that the fundamental nature of the static is the Dynamic: "Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static). It is the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra that states: "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" or as I consider it: sq is DQ, DQ is sq. Western Philosophy can be every bit as convoluted and nihilistic as Eastern Philosophy. I've read that if you read Kant as he wrote it in German, you'd find many contradictions. Consider 'Thus Spake Zarathustra'. And what did Wittgenstein write: "My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)" So please do not make any apology for Buddhism, Exploring the MoQ together with Buddhism is very valid. Marsha On Jul 21, 2011, at 5:59 PM, David Thomas wrote: > On 7/19/11 2:37 AM, "Andre Broersen" <andrebroer...@gmail.com> 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 ___ 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
