Marsha to Andre:
Please notice I wrote "seems to". It makes for weak prose, but I chose
those words intentionally. I try to use a passive style...
Andre:
Ok Marsha, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept, by you
presenting it in this way that a 'conversation' between us may me
possible (but I keep on holding my breath). When you say "I use a
passive style..."what do you mean?
It sounds like the opening chapter of ZMM wnere the narrator compares
the perspective of driving the car and sitting in a motorbike...the
first hint at the challenge to SOM (the view from the car) and the path
we are asked to follow (from the bike).
When you say 'passive style' are you sitting behind the windscreen or
are you sitting on the bike?
You continue... of constructing sentences as it better reflects my
understanding that static patterns (objects of knowledge)...
Andre:
This I do not understand or rather I cannot follow. It seems to me you
are still sitting behind the screen (i.e. SOM i.e. as if detached).
Static patterns are NOT 'objects of knowledge'. At least not to my
understanding nor experience as I live them everyday. What makes you
construct them as objects of knowledge? I do not follow your reasoning.
You continue:
'...are impermanent and ever-changing...
Andre:
Of course I have an issue here with you. I agree, static patterns are
'impermanent...' I do not agree that they are 'ever changing'. That is
why I like Pirsig's 'static' and Anthony's 'stable' clarification of
what is meant. Static patterns...they are so old...when they are damaged
have one important message: return to stability. That does not mean a
new configuration. It mean re- establish the 'old' pattern. You may not
step in the same river twice BUT you do step in the river. The river is
the static patterns and this is not semantics.
I must also reiterate the comments made by dmb regarding you notion of
static patterns being 'ever-changing'. As I tried to explain above ( and
this does NOT make me a hensh-man of dmb nor anyone else...come on
Marsha!!) the main message within static patterns, and the reason why
they can be called 'static patterns' is that whatever fluctuation
happens from within (which I still think is impossible)the pattern's
objective is remain stable. From within nothing happens...it is stable.
If any change should or could occur this happens from 'outside' energies.
You continue:- hypothetical, not necessarily real or true.
Andre:
This is the bottom line. I have given you my comments on your use of the
expression 'hypothetical'. So everything is reduced to language ?
theory? speculation? doubt? insinuation? There are countless other
expressions. As the Buddha said, and as Pirsig says...check it out for
yourself...don't take my words for it.
Is Quality hypothetical to you Marsha? Is direct experience
hypothetical? Who or what is it that can even ask that question? I think
you go over the top on many issues here and will not defend many of your
projections.
You say: ...not necessarily real or true. How can you find out? Only by
direct experience right? But if you question the validity or 'realness'
or 'trueness' of your own experience...where are you then? If you hold
'direct experence' as 'hypothetical' you are lost.
It is like questioning everyday whether I am alive or not ...and really
wrecking my brains over it... Complete nonsense!!!
You certainly have no reason, no interest, no gain, no loss, nothing to
contribute to a discussion on metaphysical issues such as ones dealing
with Pirsig's MoQ if you remain atv such a level.
Now, if you give me reasonable , genuine answers to my objections we MAY
have a conversation going. If you reply with your usual nonsense quotes,
youtube shit and Pirsig/Hagan quotes out of context... only trying to
make your self-centered points (I'd say more confusing yourself) I
really am finished with you ( as I am finished with JA and Mark for
showing, once again, their complete ignorance of understanding one iota
of MoQ to dmb...it is disgusting and absolutely pathetic to read their
responses to him.) you should really jump up and down when JA
says:"Economics is not about values" and "Economics is a way to AVOID
values". But you remain sitting on the fence whilst you feigned
participation.
St Mark has the ignoramus audacity to write:
Get in touch with the real world, dmb, you know only a little. Why don't
you just stick to what James' wrote rather than pretend to know more than
that? You are making a mockery out of the forum with your false
pretenses. Your writing shows you just to be a naive, uniformed, child
when it comes to sociology, politics, or even Quality. Why don't you write
about something that you know about?
Andre:
What Mark is doing here is, typically from a SOM perspective separate out things (
which is fine) but does not reintegrate things (which is not fine) but dmb does and
the missio of Phaedrus was translated into the MOQ!!! Mark has no clue about
separation and reintegration which was one of Phaedrus' main motivations for
continuing his quest. Mark only wants to talk about 'Quality', (whatever that means)
and alledgedly presents us every week with lots of "quality' posts .
Mark: they are nothing but self-inflationary/self aggrandizing, ego-centric,
megalo-manianical farts of drivel.
Politics/economics/socialism/capitalism/psychology/psychiatry/biology...what
the fuck. The MOQ has nothing to say about them...unless you are an 'expert'?
Pirsig had no idea about them and you need to be an expert on those BEFORE you
can attempt to integrate Quality. .. .
You have it all backwards my friend and you, being a 'scientist', and you
giving off on science for so long makes me really wonder about the quality of
scientist you really are. If you are anything like your writings well, ,,,I
wish you well ...and please go away...you have no idea of Quality...and not
much about science either.
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
