On 22-10-2013 19:35, david buchanan wrote:
And that's why Andre posed the question the way he did. Marsha's
assertions about the static world being "like an illusion" should raise
moral objections. It totally makes sense that Andre would frame his
question with the use of atomic weapons and the holocaust. The question
becomes, "in what sense is the murder of millions of innocents like an
illusion"? Saying this is "as conventionally real as rocks and trees" is
unhelpful as an explanation, of course, and the emotional coldness is
more than a little disturbing. Pirsig is referring to moral codes when
he says they are "as real as rocks and trees". Why is morality so
strangely absent from the scene, even when the question so obviously
involves morality?
Andre:
That is exactly right dmb. Thank you. I know I unsubscribed but thought
the better of it. I am NOT going to let some slithering
biological/social pattern, just because it suits the interpretation of
the vipassana injunction, drive me away from a discussion site dedicated
to the works of Pirsig. I value these highly because they are the best
thing that have happened, even wider than philosophical considerations,
to the world of thought and claims to reality.
Nobody is going to take that away and certainly not some ego injected
curiosities.
It is NOT a discussion site of Lucy's or DT's experiences.
It seeks to clarify, understand and contribute to the works of Pirsig's
MoQ, basta!
And, as Arlo has asked: what can DT identify as 'lacking' in the MoQ?
I would really like to know that: WHAT IS LACKING? WHAT/WHERE IS THE
GAP? Anyone who finds fault with Pirsig's MoQ should ask that of
themselves and be very clear in presenting it to this discuss.
Which is always welcome.
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
