Andre,
On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Andre to Marsha: > That's not the point Marsha and you know it. I am not making the claims you > make! > When you are constantly trying to undermine the MoQ by appeals to vipassana > experiences, seeing bits and pieces of your self floating by, living in the > now and repeating again and again that all is emptiness anyway(so why bother) > no wonder I find your hypothetical statement about YOUR experience trumping > explanation odd, to say the least. > > Your response above is just another cowardly Lucy action. > > Marsha responds: > Are you trying to articulate between one interested in self liberation and > one on the Bodhisattva path,because I am a mere student, have never claimed > otherwise, and have no idea of your high-minded complaints. > > Andre: > A typical Lucy action: denial in innocence. The first bit of the sentence is > stupid but the last bit gets tricky because that is a blatant lie. You DO > have an idea of my complaints. Of the way your anti-intellectual nihilation > of Pirsig's MoQ positions itself every time you write something here. You have no skill for mind reading, and I have no interest in deciphering you nonsensical opinions. Marsha > > On Oct 10, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > >> Marsha to Andre: >> Andre, whose guns do you stick to? >> >> Andre: >> That's not the point Marsha and you know it. I am not making the claims you >> make! >> When you are constantly trying to undermine the MoQ by appeals to vipassana >> experiences, seeing bits and pieces of your self floating by, living in the >> now and repeating again and again that all is emptiness anyway(so why >> bother) no wonder I find your hypothetical statement about YOUR experience >> trumping explanation odd, to say the least. >> >> Your response above is just another cowardly Lucy action. >> >> dmb responded: >> >> There are countless ways to cultivate that of presence of mind and it's >> clear that Pirsig is recommending a Zen-like identification with the task at >> hand - but it's weird that Marsha thinks her experience "trumps the >> explanation". The most obvious reason why this can't be true is that there >> is no way for anyone to examine Marsha's experience. We can only examine her >> explanation of that experience. When that explanation is placed next to >> Pirsig's explanation it's quite easy to see that Marsha has a lot of >> explaining to do. >> >> Andre: >> Exactly. And that is what she fails do, over and over again. She suggested >> in an earlier post she's not interested in Wilber which is a shame because I >> find his 'model' pertinently applicable here. Especially the part where he >> suggests that first person (interior) experiences are fine (his 'upper left' >> quadrant) but there is also the 'lower left quadrant' referring to the >> cultural-collective (interior) experiences. This involves communication, >> dialogue with people cultivating similar techniques to achieve similar >> experiences. It is a safeguard to becoming a culture of one, or becoming >> grandioze in your understanding of your own experience. >> >> The Buddhists have the sangha of course, the community of people following >> buddhist practices sharing with eachother their experiences and thoughts. >> It's a way of reaching a 'higher', a better understanding of one's own first >> person experiences. A sort of 'transcending' of one's egocentric >> self-understanding, -interpretation and -explanation. >> >> Tradesmen and professionals wanting to improve their knowledge and skills to >> work on their respective cycles meet and share information and insights on a >> daily basis. If I want to improve my cooking skills I do not go to a lawyer. >> I meet cooks and read books on the subject preferably in the kitchen for >> immediate application and experimentation. >> >> Needles to say Marsha simply refuses to do this. As matter of fact, she's in >> the wrong kitchen all together but she simply doesn't realise this either. >> >> dmb: >> Did somebody say something about missing the point? >> >> Andre: >> My point exactly. >> > No wonder I get a quirky/unreal feeling everytime you express 'concern' for > someone or some situation: you are fake. There is nothing genuine in your > writing at all. Nothing carries meaning, nothing is real. All seems to be a > challenge (this is ego stuff). There is no heart and there's no intelligence. > There's just a pseudo, new agey 'I'd rather hug-a-tree' type thing when you > write something. > > It simply says: Fuck off, leave me alone, I'm the best judge of my own > experience. I'll even criticise Pirsig for producing a metaphysics that > doesn't comply to my experience...and you can say anything you want!!! I will > not budge. > > This is a shame because this is a site where we are discussing Pirsig's MoQ > and not yours. > > And before you get personal, all this is hypothetically speaking of course. ___ 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
