Andre to Marsha: I was using the terminology because you are using similar expressions. I did this in an effort to understand, with clarity, your position. Now you are using this against my sought after clarification of your position. You refuse to commit yourself yet again. This is yet another Lucy trick.
Let me put another question to you (but is closely related):'Do you believe that the Nazis killed 6 million human beings in what is conventionally/conditionally referred to as the holocaust?' Marsha responded with: I answered your last question: The atomic bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were/are as conditionally real, as "real as rocks and trees". That's it. Bye. Andre: I still do not see why you use the adjective 'conditionally' when asked a direct question as Pirsig did the professor in Benares. To be more precise, I do not see why you fail to answer this question by appealing to the 'conditioned' status of phenomena in this world which, in my book simply means co-dependent arising. You may bring up the 'illusory' aspect when phenomena are considered permanent, independent and unchanging. But the MoQ has already resolved this diversion appeal as well. I know that as far as you are concerned the question (and your answer) is dead and buried (so much for impermanence eh?) but I am extremely disappointed that anyone who claims to adhere to Pirsig's MoQ cannot give a straightforward yes/no answer to the question: Do you believe that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory? Or: Do you believe that the killing by the Nazis of 6 million human beings in what is referred to as the holocaust is illusory? This is cowardice of the worst kind. Sharing a discussion site with people of this ilk makes me seriously re-consider my participation and subscription. 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
