Marsha stands firmly upon a paradox that she doesn't understand. She's remains confused as to the meaning of the MOQ's central distinction, i.e. the distinction between concepts and reality, between static quality and Dynamic Quality. Pirsig and James both say "there must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality". Somehow, she takes this to mean that concepts are unreal or that they are just fleeting illusions. This stance is very convenient if one is bad at dealing with concepts. I suppose that's the main motive for her stance. She is trying to make her own confusion into a virtue. It's not. Being an enlighten mystic simply isn't the same as being a bad philosopher, much less a confused troll. Yep, Marsah stands firmly on a paradox because she thinks this will give her a license to indulge in a lot of contradictory nonsense. You know, like saying that "static patterns" are "ever-changing". She thinks that anything is true so long as the phrase "for me" is included with the claim. She thinks that nothing is true so long as it involves words and concepts. Even though the central idea in the MOQ is that "there must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality", she insists that every MOQers problem is that they mistake concepts for reality. I could on like this all day long. Her position is one big pile of confused nonsense. And no matter what anyone says, she insists on repeating the same contradictory drivel over and over again.
> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:59:06 +0100 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] belief > > Marsha to Andre: > I take the two-view perspective of the MoQ. There is the MoQ as the > intellectual/conceptual metaphysical system, with all its examples and > supporting explanation, which was presented by RMP in 'LILA' and with > interviews, text and letters; and there is the MoQ as Reality = Quality > (Dynamic/static), or as I prefer to think of it: > Value(unpatterned/patterned). > > Andre: > Can't weasel your way out of this one Marsha and you know it but keep on > confusing the two. As Reality the MoQ does not exist! That is why, in > our everyday world, as we are living it moment to moment the MoQ is an > intellectual pattern of value. It is absurd and nihilistic to adhere to > both views at the same time in the way YOU do. Obviously you are not a > mystic, obviously you are not an intellectual. Obviously you do not > understand one iota about MoQ. Both would understand not to confuse the > two which you constantly do...whenever it suits you...remember?..."DQ is > none other than sq...sq is none other than DQ", as you have argued so > often. And your response shows this confusion again and again. > > It is a ploy, a stance, an excuse for getting you out of tight > intellectual situations and the way you do it does nothing to bring you > any sort of respect, acceptance or compassion. > > I take the NOT-TWO-VIEW perspective of the MoQ...just to put you in the > picture. Hope this may help...but I doubt it very, very much. > > Go away Lucy.... . > 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
