dmb,
You are confused as to what "Apparenty, Marsha thinks...". But you seem very
good at confusing whatever patterns pass through your consciousness with
Reality and worthy of your nonsensical judgements. It's called naive realism,
and it is hilarious to read your posts.
What Marsha thinks is that you should go get the stick. Go on boy, get the
stick! Get the stick!
Marsha
p.s. I do, though, appreciate you keeping the MoQ and RMP in the P.E.L.
consciousness.
---
p.p.s. Ron, I don't know how you are defining "evolves to a conclusion." , but
if it's by sequential placement in the book, the quote I presented was from
Chapter 32, the last chapter. Actually, I wouldn't label it the conclusion,
but something as worthy of consideration. Also the quote I posted to Mark:
RMP:
... Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject
or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by
reasoning of any kind...
DG:
Direct experience does not mean direct experience per se but rather experience
directly perceived. It may just be a matter of semantics but I have always
argued there is no such thing as direct experience. Now I sense I have been
looking at the question backwards, so to speak.
RMP:
Yes
(LILA's CHILD)
On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:34 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> " ... Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act
> since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher
> mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to
> control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to
> devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within a
> static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try?
> It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No matter
> how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 'right' for all
> people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions led to a hundred
> more and answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only would he never get
> it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger it would probably get. . . .
> ". (LILA)
>
>
> Ron said to Marsha:
> Thats the point, you don't really understand what RMP writes. Especially if
> you consider that quote as a validation to your assertions. One can't use a
> quote from a narrative story as though it were to be taken as a true-ism,
> applicable as a clear statement concerning any context. The story evolves
> along with the characters thus what is stated also evolves to a conclusion.
> ...
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> Apparently, Marsha thinks the quote counts as evidence against something I
> said. One can only wonder what she thinks it means. Since Pirsig refuses to
> define DQ, his MOQ never attempts to devour the mystic reality. To say,
> "there must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality" is just
> another way of saying that DQ cannot be defined. Pirsig asserts this same
> idea over and over again and all of these statements are consistent with each
> other.
> "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
> abstractions." This is another way to say that DQ can never be captured or
> encapsulated by concepts and definitions. It's another way of saying ideas
> are always derived from the primary empirical reality. Unlike the
> intellectual abstractions, which are "static and discontinuous", "reality,..
> is dynamic and flowing". Immediate experience is the primary reality, is DQ,
> and static quality is always derived from this dynamic flux. That's what
> Pirisg means when he says "Quality is the source and substance of
> everything". That what he means when he says Quality is not a metaphysical
> chess piece. This is what he means when he says that truth is subordinate to
> the Good.
> Obviously, Pirsig has not used his own quote to prohibit the creation of the
> Metaphysics of Quality.
>
> Basically, I've claimed that Marsha does not understand the first thing about
> the MOQ so here response, apparently, is to post a quote suggesting that
> trying to understand Pirsig's philosophy is immoral.
>
> C'mon, seriously. How confused and incoherent is that? Pirsig rejected his
> own philosophy as immoral? Marsha is a ridiculous troll who seems determined
> to prove that nothing can ever make sense or even that making sense is some
> kind of evil. She simply not the kind of person who belongs in any discussion
> group.
>
>
___
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
