Marsha Does this mean that your writings and the words and concepts among other static and predictable patterns are unreal?
Jan Anders 2 nov 2012 kl. 20.28 skrev MarshaV: > > 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 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
