http://www.millionwomendrummers.com/mwdgvision.html
On Jun 25, 2012, at 4:54 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
