No, it was not. We each march to the beat of a different drummer. Sorry if it seemed that way. Most of my comments are regarded in that way. At least for now. All I can do is express my Quality Awareness. That is all Pirsig can do.
BTW, it is interesting to have a subject of "dark night" in this forum. It is kind of like having a forum on parachuting where not many people have jumped out of an airplane, but still have a lot to say about it. If dark night was not DQ for you, what would you describe it as? Or is this subject simply "theoretical"? Mark On 6/25/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > And, for example, your comment concerning "deaf ears" was not one of > pretentious, disarming, condescension. :-) > > > Marsha > > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:15 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> I do not disagree with you, I just have a different approach. I have no >> problem with your approach. We just have a different sense of Quality. >> >> Carry on, >> Mark >> >> Sent laboriously from an iPhone, >> Mark >> >> On Jun 24, 2012, at 9:13 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Mark, >>> >>> This post seems like philosophical/psychological chum thrown overboard to >>> see what it will attract. I have no problem with you disagreeing with >>> me, but often I cannot find a precise point of disagreement. Is there a >>> specific point you'd like to discuss? >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 24, 2012, at 11:55 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marsha, >>>> I appreciate the labels that you are giving to DQ. I think I >>>> understand >>>> where you are coming from. You present a kind of metaphysical >>>> theology. >>>> There is also another kind of metaphysics, that is one which traces >>>> back >>>> to ultimate principles. I am' dealing with the latter approach. It is >>>> simply two different approaches. I am sure that your approach brings >>>> you >>>> much fulfillment. >>>> >>>> This forum is about the metaphysics of Quality. That is, it is meant >>>> to >>>> provide a description of Quality in metaphysical terms. Certainly >>>> unknowable can be one such description, but I am curious where you take >>>> it >>>> from there. Is the first principle that it cannot be described? If so, >>>> we >>>> are speaking of a metaphysics of the indescribable, which is more of a >>>> Christian approach to reality. I have no problem with this. >>>> >>>> Any metaphysics of Quality comes from one's personal relationship, >>>> through >>>> Quality, with existence. I fully appreciate that your relationship >>>> with >>>> existence is one of unknowability. This indeed can be one of wonder, >>>> and >>>> be very fulfilling, and I appreciate you candor in providing this to >>>> me. >>>> That IT is there but that we will never know it. Thanks for that. I >>>> have >>>> some more thoughts concerning my approach, which may fall on deaf ears. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:13 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > snip... > > > > 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
