Robert Pirsig wrote:
"In the past Pheadrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality
alone and neglect static patterns of quality. 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. 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" (Robert Pirsig in Lila).
> On Mar 25, 2012, at 12:48 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> > dmb:
> > "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).
>
>
> Marsha:
> Why, because you think so? I do not value your opinion, and your
> point-of-view is not interesting to me. You seem to think progress is
> agreeing with you. There are multiple ways to experience the MoQ. I am
> interested in the MoQ as a bridge between the East and West. From RMP's
> initial interest in Northrop's 'Meeting of East and West: An Inquiry
> Concerning World Understanding' and his recommendation of Steve Hagan's book
> ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, I think he is quite interested in accommodating
> both East and West philosophies.
dmb says:
Did anyone say Pirsig is NOT interested in accommodating East and West? No, of
course not. That much can be seen by reading nothing more than the title of his
first book. And that uncontested point is completely irrelevant anyway. The
point is to show that your position is contradicted by the evidence. You've
dismissed Pirsig's explicit statement (the evidence of what Pirsig thinks) as
if it were just my opinion or the opinion of whoever quotes Pirsig. I take this
to mean that you do not understand what counts as evidence or what counts as a
reasonable interpretation. As usual, you seem to be incapable of understanding
this criticism as such. You take the use of textual evidence as an argument
from authority or a form of persecution against you personally. That's totally
twisted, upside down and backwards.
This is just more proof of your incompetence, Marsha. You can't even stay on
the topic, let alone say anything relevant about it.
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
