Ian: Weird - I see only clarity and consistency - in the relational nature of existence.
Andre: Yes Ian, it is, as you say, clear and consistent. But dmb posted this in response to Marsha's continuing antics about her persistent (and wrong) interpretation of 'relative' which I think goes back at least as far as the beginning of 2010 To Marsha all is relative, i.e meaningless (!) because of her constant referral (citing Anthony's PhD, Allan Watts, Hagan, Nagarjuna...you name it),pointing to the 'inherent, empty' nature of SQ. This reinforces her notion that DQ=sq, about which she is convinced. She has consistently (i.e. statically [despite her claims of being an ever-changing pattern of values])maintained this position despite arguments to the contrary from amongst others, dmb and myself.During those arguments she has never, NEVER suggested that what she REALLY means by 'relative' is 'relational'. NEVER. (Marsha WILL claim innocence). Of late, of course she has claimed exactly this and I have responded in turn. It is wriggling, sliding and slivering in the bucket she occupies. (I am not particularly interested in hearing of her version of 'co-dependent arising' 'cos I feel trouble, but she throws this in the arena as well). In her defense of the relative [in relation to emptiness] she has adopted the post-modern stance suggesting that (sq) perspectives are bound/groundless in the sense of having no ground, no 'finality' (because they are 'empty'... whatever that means!) What she is arguing therefore is that there is no advantage of having one perspective (sq) over another (sq) except of course their 'rankings' within the MOQ. One of her oft claimed defenses is that all posts arguing to the contrary of her position is simply 'an opinion'. She rejects authority ( the local butcher's opinion about the theory of relativity is equal to Einstein's and I am not even talking about her response to arguments presented by William James or Pirsig's own MOQ). She repeats this stance ad infinitum thereby placing herself in a contradictory position (which she will deny) that there is no advantage to any perspective.......... EXCEPT MARSHA'S ( because all is emptiness anyway). This truly is madness. But understandable! She has admitted to David that she finds it difficult to find an orienting point, a reference point, an organizing point within static patterns of quality. No wonder, because if you consider yourself an 'ever-changing pattern of...' you are bound to get and remain lost...floating in the wind or wriggling in a bucket of ever mystifying patterns of jungle. She has difficulties with her 'self' and refuses (seemingly) to use the, what is considered, dirty word. All this is by the by and stems IMHO from the basic mistaken proposition that DQ=sq. This is contrary to MOQ principle, the most fundamental slice (which she considers to be made for rhetorical reasons). For you and for all it is very clear Ian. Apparently not for Marsha for whom dmb's post was intended. 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
