Andre, In your response I see no indication that you understand MoQ, and yet you ask me to read up on it. What I asked for were some simple clarifications of what you meant. I am fine that you do not want to expose yourself as somebody like Marsha does, but that you guise this in some arrogant posturing does not seem right. Either you understand MoQ or you do not. You can provide information that you do understand it, by simply providing some evidence. Until that time, I do not see how you can complain about what somebody else is posting.
I will read Anthony's Ph.D. if he provides it to me. If he does not want me to read what he wrote, that is his choice. He may have some worry of what I will ask him about, but that is not my fault. In the meantime, I am having this discussion with you, but you seem to want to hide from me. Again, I can fully understand this, but please be honest about it. My questions were well meant since your post seems to be all over the place. If you were drunk when you wrote it, fine, but now you have the opportunity to become involved in this forum. As you know, I fully understand MoQ, and have presented much on it. All I ask is that you do the same. If you have a problem with what I present, then please provide good arguments against it. Throwing a book at me is not appropriate, and demeans the whole practice of philosophy. I am happy that you find the writings of Pirsig as the best thing you have seen, but I most certainly do not understand why. What are you comparing these writings to, to be able to say this? I have no need to continue this discussion if you do not want to. I can get meaningful information from Marsha and others. Thank you, Mark On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroer...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mark to Andre: > I would like to comment on your metaphysical arguments below, but first I > need some clarification from what you present. I am not quite sure what you > mean. > > What do you mean Quality has MOQ? > Are you saying that the concept of Quality takes on a life of it's own,... > Andre, I am not sure what the argument you are making here is. > This is not clear.I guess I am confused by what you mean... > What has done nothing for the Tao? > > I am not sure what you mean by a "referring term". > I am not quite sure what you mean. > Could you clarify this paragraph? > Ignorance of what truth? > What do you mean by the world of Buddhas? > Why do you say we do not live in the world of the Buddhas? > > Andre: > Mark, with all due respect. You asked me to put some stuff into my own words > and all I get is this. I am certain that the likes of dmb, Dan, Ron, > Anthony, Arlo and David have very little problems understanding what I mean. > If some of them would have difficulties (and I have asked some of them in > the past)they will jump on me for either misrepresenting or misunderstanding > Pirsig's MOQ. > > Now, you seem to have loads of difficulties. I do not think it is not due to > the low quality of my post. It is due to your understanding of the MOQ. I > have suggested it before; Please read ZMM and LILA and get a copy of > Anthony's PhD. He had put it on a 'special offer'. It is very good value for > money. Obviously you have not responded but, once again, I urge you to do > so. > > Confession Mark: Nothing I say is new, nothing I say is my own. I am a > product of the culture I live in, and sometimes when I do think that I have > thought of something new...I find out it's the oldest idea in the world or > something that has been regurgitated many times over and spat out years ago! > Still, it is/was new to me and that is all I have. And that breaths new life > into me. > > I also think that ZMM and LILA are the best thing this world has seen for a > very long time. I mean, can you improve on Pirsig's description of Art(in > ZMM)? > > But you reckon you can. You reckon that ZMM and LILA are now 'old hat', > 'scripture' and it's 'time to move on'. It's like being given the very best > car in the world and after a few rides you are tired of it (without having > explored all its conveniences and possibilities) and any reference or > comparisen with it is regarded by you as 'old hat', 'scripture'.... Time to > move on. (move bloody where??) > > Given that you seem to have no difficulties with Marsha's representation of > Pirsig's MOQ is an indication of your misunderstanding of it. I mean you > seem to be confused about DQ/sq as well. > > I am not of the zap nor the throw-away culture Mark. I can cherish things > that have high quality for a very long time. I am after durability and > Pirsig's MOQ is something that will last for a very long time. The more I > think about its words, sentences, paragraphs the more frequently a fresh new > insight dawns on me. Not in relation to what was, but what is. Now. > > Start reading and comprehending Mark. Practice makes perfect. > > > > > 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
