Mark said to Andre:
Is your post below MoQ or drivel? Please explain why DQ has no staying power,
it seems from your dissertation below that you have no idea. Some explanation
of your fundamental premise would be nice.
dmb says:
Andre and I have both been explaining this with lots of textual evidence for a
long, long time. And we're definitely not the only ones.
It's seems pretty clear that you and Marsha are cannot grasp this idea no
matter how many times it's explained. Once or twice should be enough but it's
been given dozens, maybe even hundreds of times.
Andre has quoted Pirsig on this point many times. This one, to take one of
many examples, was posted in December of last year:
"In the past Pheadrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality
alone (as you seem to be doing Marsha) and neglect static patterns of quality
(as you seem to be doing Marsha). Until now he had always felt that these
static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of
anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that which does not
change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this radical bias
weakened his own case ( listening Marsha?). Life cannot exist on Dynamic
Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality is to cling
to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying
what it is not rather that futilely trying to define what it is... Slowly at
first, and then with increasing awareness (!) that he was going in a right
direction, Phaedrus' central attention turned away from any further explanation
of Dynamic Quality and turned to the static patterns themselves" (LILA pp
124-5).
dmb continues:
There is never going be any progress until we can get past the basics. The
difference between DQ and sq is the MOQ's first and most basic distinction but
Mark and Marsha are completely stuck somewhere behind the the starting line and
can not even begin to move forward. Like spoiled children, they're getting
attention for all the wrong reasons. Their utter incorrigibility keeps the rest
of us going round in circles by trying to get the basics across over and over
and over again. And here, once again, Mark is acting like nobody ever had a
good reason to dispute their incoherent drivel. This one piece of evidence
should be enough for any reasonable person to grasp the point even if it were
the only Pirsig they ever read. Does this not PROVE that they are not competent
to discuss the MOQ? I think so.
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
