dmb/Andre, When it comes to understanding RMPs words, your choice seems relative. When reading Annotation 140 from 'LILA's Child', for instance, and as witnessed by your years of showering everyone with your ad hominen attacks, your intellectual competence flatlines. Sigh. Sigh. So sad...
Marsha On Mar 25, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > dmb to Mark: > > Free yourself from words by writing? Explain some thoughts without mentioning > them? And you're not kidding? > Can I get please get a witness? > > Andre: > Yes dmb, the level of intellectual discourse is at an all time low at > present. This is what I meant when I said that "the contents of your posts ( > i.e Marsha's and Mark's) makes me indeed wonder what a poor fucking excuse > for a human being you both are". That is, their IDEA of being human, their > lamentation at this 'being' shows itself time and time again. Both are > clearly not going beyond some of Pirsig's MOQ premises but blatantly DENY > them. Both deny themselves being this jungle of static patterns of quality > capable of apprehending DQ. Their unreserved denial of static quality > patterns, their related complete misunderstanding/denial of latching, their > unqualified adherence to Dynamic Quality as the only virtuous way to be, has > degenerated into the messy drivel both are creating. > > As Pirsig argued, DQ alone has no staying power and levels are not > transcended but in fact an overall regression takes place to a prior, lower > level. Both posters fully affirm the truth and quality of this observation. > And yes, it is scientific fact. Pick any topic, let them discuss it (without > words and thought)and, guaranteed; the outcome is: drivel. Repeat the > experiment with another topic, and guaranteed outcome: drivel. This satisfies > a scientific paradigm. It is repeatable and therefore predictable (which,of > course both deny). > > I believe it was Mary who suggested recently that this list had "run its > course" and that it should be "free and open to everyone who has a point of > view". This is correct and blatantly incorrect. Yes, it is free and open to > everyone BUT the "points of view" refer to expressing an interest in Pirsig's > MOQ. That is what we are supposed to be discussing here on this MD. > But when the entire MOQ is DENIED ( because it is a static intellectual > pattern of value... and oops, it has words which point to meanings, ideas, > thoughts,(symbols) etc) and the only thing you can produce is drivel then you > have NO REASON TO BE HERE WHATSOEVER. Go away, start your own fan club, write > a book, meditate, sing ooooooooommmmmmmmm, do anything but not here! > > Sad really. > > > 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
