Marsha to dmb:
Try to present an actual argument and present actual evidence to support
your claim. Where are the actual quotes made by me that put me in the
category of a nihilistic relativism or a solipsistic subjectivism?
Andre:
By your insistence that all is emptiness (a la Nagarjuna). You use this
to dismiss any attempt to correct your confused understanding of
Pirsig's MoQ.
Secondly, you use your own experience to dismiss any attempt at
correcting your confused understanding of Pirsig's MoQ. You defended the
'patterns are everchanging' in that it 'agrees with my experience and
synthesizes well with the MoQ, which is based on empirical experiences'.
I'll correct this statement by amending it to: 'agrees with my
experience and synthesises well with MY INTERPRETATION OF the MoQ, which
is based on MY INTERPRETATION of empirical experiences'.
dmb said to Horse (who hopes Marsha will eventually learn):
She simply refuses to discuss the MOQ itself. If it's not one excuse, it's
another. And it goes on like this day after day, month after month, year after
year. With a little trip through the archives and some cutting and pasting, I
could show you that this same pattern was occurring five years ago. But please
just take my word for it because that sounds really boring for both of us.
Andre:
Agree. Marsha is NOT discussing Pirsig's MoQ. She is presenting her own
interpretation based on her experience and 'empirical experience'
(difference??). The huge brick wall Marsha does not see from her own
perspective is that she is confusing her (vipassana) 'experience' (purportedly
bringing her in contact with DQ) with the INTERPRETATION of that experience.
And interpretations ARE sq. This may well point to her confusion about the two.
She sees them as the same as this may help her perhaps as the only way out of
her SOM/SOL intellect. As a way of moving 'beyond' the MoQ (Marsha's confusion).
Further, she uses Pirsig's quotes to not only back these claims up but also the
'not this,not that' statement, among others. Problem is that this statement, in
the hands of Pirsig, makes perfect sense. However, in the hands of Marsha this
statement (as well as the Nagarjuna statement)is lethal. It is confused,
projecting,sarcastic,ironic, insulting, misrepresentative and nihilates the MoQ
(to use some of Marsha's own jargon).
Years and years and years have now gone by and Lucy sticks to her game. I, me
mine, I, me mine, I me mine. Pirsig's MoQ transcends the personal, ego driven,
self-centered interpretations. And if Marsha is only half-way through her
investigation of the MoQ and Buddhism (self-admittingly no expert on either of
them), coupled with her (incomplete) vipassana persuit she should wait with the
presentation of her findings until she has completed her project.
It is unscientific to make grand statements about something based on incomplete
findings, when the results are not all in yet. Hence her own rebuttals in
defense, her Lucy tricks and, of course her feigned sincerity.
She is simply NOT OPEN to learning from others.
Sorry, but that's my take on this.
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
