John has tried to slander Pirsig or if has dishonestly tried to smuggle in a
theistic view. Again. It's like a hobby, I guess. Trolls will be trolls.
Andre:
And not only that but John bases the slander on false claims he invents
himself. Phaedrus did not read A.N. Whitehead at all in
John:
I choose to believe that we live in a dualistic world
Andre:
What a pity and travesty of reality.
John:
The dualism can be expressed in many ways, but is best expressed, DQ and SQ.
Andre:
What drivel. It shows your complete lack of understanding of Pirsig’s MOQ.
John:
DQ is the world
the misunderstandings you imply above
(can you give specific instances in the text where you read this?).
Andre:
Thanks Arlo, it indeed is not a dissertation on Pirsig’s philosophy. I have
read the pieces on her reading of ZMM and LILA from her perspective and must
say that von Dahlern makes some worthwhile
understanding from
the MoQ perspective.
Am interested to hear your comments/thoughts. Perhaps I completely
misunderstand.
Andre
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
John M to Andre:
The various ways you showed, in Issue 11, how DQ escapes our linguistic and
intellectual constraints gave me an idea. Here's something that came to me
sort of dynamically, and I'd like to try it out here. It may be total
nonsense or total crap.
Linguistic and Logical
On 13/10 John Carl wrote:
I don't see how a metaphysics of undefinable Quality can be static. In fact,
I'd say its in the very nature of Value to be dynamic and evolving.
Andre:
We’ve been going over this perspective more than once. It’s a shame that some
still do not experience the difference
Dear MOQ’ers
Some time ago ( Wed, sept 14) John M said:
The MOQ isn't a living, dynamic entity. It is a static intellectual pattern.
It was made at a point in time by one person, in the midst of his own unique
circumstances. But it doesn't fit mine,…’
Andre:
This „ it doesn’t fit mine
JA to Andre:
A social motorcycle is a social pattern that can be maintained, not by using a
monkey-grip but by social tools. That?s what the MOQ is good for, kind-ness,
social quality and friendlyness. The art of how to enter a public house for a
beer and some small talk.
Andre:
The point you
JA to Andre:
My point was that we can beat something material with a stick but we can?t hit
a concept at the intellectual level with a stick. Each level has its tools. To
maintain a social motorcycle we have to use social ?sticks? and vice versa.
Andre:
What is a social motorcycle?
JA:
I know
JC to Andre:
I think his point might have been something along the lines of the following
essay, composed by Royce in homage to his friend and mentor, William James:...
Andre:
So you are arguing that because Royce, being a friend of James, puts Royce on
equal footing with the intellectual
JC to Andre:
I think John McC might have had a different point in mind than the one
picked out here.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is sad really but, since the above mentioned pattens? gripe seems to
be that the MOQ does not fulfill
John M to Andre:
The MOQ isn't a living, dynamic entity. It is a static intellectual pattern.
It was made at a point in time by one person, in the midst of his own unique
circumstances.
Andre:
I would like to come back to this observation by John M which undoubtedly is
arrived at through
Andre:
Apologies to all who know the poem which I, inadvertently failed to reproduce
properly. Here it is again…in full:
While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns
Kill them completely
And then follow Dynamic Quality
And morality will be served.
Oh, the poem
John M to Andre:
The MOQ isn't a living, dynamic entity. It is a static intellectual pattern.
It was made at a point in time by one person, in the midst of his own unique
circumstances
Andre:
As I said to you privately John, it is risky to suggest, as you do above, that
Pirsig’s MOQ
John McConnel to Andre:
Andre, you fight like an adolescent girl, snapping and spitting and biting and
scratching. Go to your room!
Andre:
Hi John, nice of you to chime in with your evaluation of my interaction with
JC’s posts. I cannot find anything substantive to respond to since it seems
John to Andre:
Your words are absolutely clear, Andre. I can see right through them. To the
exact wording that Pirsig used and while I have to give you an A for
scholarly accuracy, If that's all there is to your MOQ then I’m afraid you’ve
missed the whole point.
Andre:
You’re right John
J.A to John and Andre :
But anyone of you still can't hit one of these DEEP values with a stick nor
talk to the stick. Aint that peculiar?
Andre:
That ain’t peculiar J.A. Nr one: I do not know where John gets the DEEP values
from…perhaps from his groin…could be anything but as Pirsig pointed
John Carl:
Here is the passage I recently read, that sounded like an MOQ approach to
religion.
Andre:
The „ MOQ” approach to religion is very clear John. We all know this. In the
MOQ religion is a social pattern of value…just one of many. Unless you consider
dancing an expression of religion
be expected under the circumstances and
hopefully (at least for me) we'll see him back here soon.
Andre:
From a place in mourning my thoughts go out to JC and his family.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http
dmb said:
Yep. His position has already been totally defeated but he just continues
obliviously repeating the same nonsense over and over again. You can lead a
horse to water but this one thinks death by dehydration is a good thing,
apparently.
Andre:
Total agreement dmb (and Arlo of course
they
are unconscious. When you try and apply the analytical knife, the
subject gets very slippery. Pirsig himself said when it comes to social
patterns, it's hard to picture anything that isn't one.
Andre:
To distinguish the social level from the intellectual level let me offer
an example John
Andre:
I think it ought to be very clear from John’s latest response to my post that
he is indeed following in Marsha’s footsteps. Nothing but mocking insults to
both dmb and me (least of which is confusing the quality of the posts of these
two) and, by implication, making a mockery of LILA
John to Andre:
oh piffle, Andre. How is this contributing to either clarifying my so-called
confusion, or advancing Pirsig's MoQ?
Andre:
Your confusion John has been pointed out and clarified at least a dozen times
by the posters I mentioned…but you take no heed. I see no point in repeating
a rigorously logical process.
That's all I'm sayin’.
Andre:
I’ve been keeping quiet John, following your twittering Facebook enhancing
drivel. Let’s just say I agree with Arlo, Dan, dmb, Ron and Ant about your
social media exploits and the quagmire of confusions you are finding yourself
in.
I
Ian to Dan:
All I would question is why a negative reaction to veiled religious
fundamentlism - dogmatic fundamentalism bad sure, but what about faith
in quality as the basis of a living metaphysics.
Andre:
Because 'faith in quality' suggests a belief, a trust in whatever one
means
dmb says:
Good point, Andre (and Ant). DQ is experience itself, which is also known as the
primary empirical reality, while faith is approximately the opposite of that.
Andre:
Thanks dmb. The grotesque problem with Ian's suggestion is that it seriously
nullifies Pirsig's effort and shows
I could interest the Royceans in the same fact. So far I haven't
been able to sell it, because it's just my word for what the MoQ
actually says. And even I admit I'm no expert.
Andre:
No expert on the MoQ John? Well, you've always maintained to understand
it well. So you want to keep
John to Andre:
I am sorry if my use of rhetoric gives you that impression, Andre. I
assure you with all sincerity that I'm not interested in merely
ridiculing or misleading in an attempt to make you look foolish. But I
do believe there are some grave mis-interpretations at play here in our
Andre said to John:
The Law is into a popularity contest? It appears to me that the more you
try to explain your position the messier it gets John.
To which John replied:
Heh. Well that's true of just about any intellectual exercise Andre.
It's the corollary of the Pirsigian postulate
John to Andre:
Intellectual ideas struggle to gain social success but intellectual
values do not compete with social values.
Andre:
The Law is into a popularity contest? It appears to me that the more you
try to explain your position the messier it gets John.
We want to dance all night
John to Andre:
I thought about this some more Andre, and I can see Struggle, like a
fish struggling to make it out of the sea an onto the land. There is
constant struggling and striving between the levels.
Andre:
Hi John. Well...in view of what you are saying further in your post I
don't
John to Andre:
I admit they do struggle.
Andre:
That's a start John. I mean, you don't have to be a genius to experience
that there is struggle and competition between the levels.
John:
But is it necessary? That is, is this the metaphysics of Quality?
Following the idea that it's all
John Carl said to Andre, Feb 27th 2014:
I agree there is competition at all levels. I do not agree there is
competition between the levels.
John continues on March 3:
You may prefer to look at it as competition between your brain and your
asshole, but I'm of the mind that if I can get them
Andre presented a 'real experiential example' of levels competing:
It's not very difficult to figure out the levels that are in competition with
each other and why.
Is this a 'real experiential example' enough for you John?
Ant McWatt comments:
LOL Andre! I'm going to love seeing Platt's
John Carl then said to Andre, Feb 27th 2014:
I agree there is competition at all levels. I do not agree there is
competition between the levels.
Ant Mcwatt comments:
John, that doesn't ring true to me, certainly as I understand the MOQ.
John Carl continued to Andre, Feb 27th 2014:
I
John to Andre:
I agree there is competition at all levels. I do not agree there is
competition between the levels.
Andre:
I agree John and am unsure whether I have stated otherwise. I have
always maintained that between the levels there is a struggle for
domination, a competition
Joe to Andre and All:
Is there a difference between intellectual ideas and perceptions? Is the
difference between static ideas and poetic expression significant SQ DQ?
Andre:
Not sure what you are asking Joe. It seems to me that 'intellectual
ideas', 'perceptions', 'static ideas' and 'poetic
John to Andre (arguing that intellectual patterns do not compete with
social patterns and never have):
I would say I have a good understanding of the confusion generated by
the MoQ on this subject.
Andre:
The (your) 'confusion' is 'generated by the MoQ'?? Pirsig advances
numerous examples
John to Andre:
Intellectual patterns do not compete with social patterns and never have.
Andre:
This just about summarizes your entire paragraph John and it's an
indication of a very confused understanding of the MoQ. How you can
reach such a conclusion is beyond me. And you maintain that you
dmb:
Right, I also selected and presented several pieces of textual evidence that
show quite clearly that John is simply wrong about this. What's really sad is
that John doesn't care what the evidence says.
Andre:
And even worse dmb, as you point out, John fails to simply learn from everyday
John to Andre:
According to the MoQ, intellect should rrule society - but this is
plainly impossible. The only way intellect can rule over social patterns
is within the mind of an individual...
Andre:
I fail to understand what you are trying to say here John. The attempt
at intellectual
Horse to John:
But what I don't see is that ...the Giant perpetuates itself over the
generations and grows - via intellectual SOM patterns. I think it's a
lot more complex than that.
Andre:
Or it could be a lot less complex than that Horse (with all respect).
That which Pirsig is referring
at
robertpirsig.org that he would have re-written or edited as it was
originally written just to assist me in my PhD work and was originally
not meant for the wider world.
Andre:
Thank you for clarifying this Anthony as I never quite understood what
the 'status' of the Copleston Annotations are. I
John to Andre:
The essence of the Giant is SOM and if you can't see that then I don't
even know what you're doing here.
Andre:
Since you say you have a good grasp of the MoQ John let me ask you: do
you agree that 'the Giant' is a social pov? And do you agree that SOM is
an intellectual pov
Ian:
The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily
organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the
most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history.
Andre:
Can you enlighten us with your knowledge of life that is not
'necessarily organic life
objective society also. So what is there that limits
Objectivism, when turning everything into an object of control is so
overwhelming?
Andre:
So what are you saying John? Is that the way to go? Will this save the
world?...should you consider it worth saving?
What does the MoQ say to all
John:
Society is ruled by laws...
Andre:
And here you go yet again John. You have it backward. Authority (in
modern terms 'Law')'create' society.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http
J-A:
Yes, we all know that, but what is the difference? What was it that triggered this shift?
DQ of course, but how did it happen? The basic cause for step one?
Andre:
Life is heading away from patterns, from whatever laws we may invent to explain
them. As Lennon sang; 'Life is what happens
J-A:
How can we describe the difference between moral 1, the inorganic, and moral 2
the organic?
Andre:
My guess is that the inorganic level is 'informed' by the morals of the laws of
(quantum)physics,
My guess is that the organic level is 'informed' by the morals of the laws of
nature.
J
John to Andre:
Is SOM inextricably tied to modern society?
Andre:
Look John, 'modern society' is the way it is. Is this perspective based
on a subject-object metaphysics? No, because a SOM does not accept the
reality of values. SOM _simply_ says that only subjects and objects are
real. I
Jan-Anders:
By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to
define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the
organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives.
Andre:
'Everything that has not been created by life (defined
Andre;
That was an excellent post dmb. Thanks for clarifying the social level
in such a clear way.
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
Ian asked:
...which concerned (this is paraphrasing) absorbing something which was
immoral, and not passing it on (as a high form of morality). Does this
ring a bell with anyone? If so, where in Lila can it be found? Many thanks,
Andre:
Ian you can find it on page 407 of LILA (chapter 32
Jan Anders:
That was the reason for me to write Money and the Art.. because I
thought that if the MOQ perspective will be able to compete with SOM,
there must be economically superior to SOM.
Andre:
Hi Jan-Anders. With all due respect, when will you stop plugging your
book on this discuss
don't have any
trouble understanding him.
Andre:
Well John, if Dan or dmb cannot persuade you into realizing your error
just remember what Pirsig says about the social level:
'Societies are subjective. No objective instrument can detect a society'
(see Annot. 18)
This is pretty much what
Hamilton said:
Nor do I believe, as Andre apparently does, that There is a moral code
that establishes the supremacy of social order over biological life ...
[and] moral codes over the social order. In other words, I don't
believe in a world that is moral by divine or executive fiat.
Andre
Andre to Ham:
This morality at play, this moral reasonableness is established in the
MoQ's 'codes':
inorganic-chaotic,biological-inorganic,social-biological,intellectual-social
and Dynamic-static (LILA,p307).
Andre:
What I should have made clear to Ham is that 'this morality at play
Ham said to John:
Society depends upon individual (not 'concrete'?) identities who
collectively establish their moral standards, and ideally vote for
representatives in government who will foster those standards.
Andre:
No Hamilton! Social patterns of value do NOT comprise 'individual
to this question.
Andre:
Hi Arlo, Dan, dmb and All:
Educational questions are pertinent questions about purpose. I think that is
well put Arlo. Through my own wanderings and wonderings around some parts of
the globe I have been fortunate to have been exposed to a taste of four
educational
John L. McConnell said:
If you qualify experience as physical experience, then a level of experience
beyond that makes perfect sense.
Andre:
The MoQ is not only about 'physical experience'. It identifies at least 5 that
I am aware of.
JLM:
I can think of two self-imposed limitations
an expert presence at all. So, let me ask, given your
criticisms, what would something better look like?
Andre:
Good exchange of ideas Dan an Arlo and forgive me for butting in but
(and I may have the timelines not quite correct here) but wasn't
Phaedrus just as much a student of Qualiy as his
Andre:
Sorry about my last post Dan, Arlo and John. Just read the latest posts
from the next issues edition where my point had been raised already and
adequately answered.
Thanks guys.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss
Ron said:
Broken ribs make life
Difficult, coupled with
The herniated disc it
Really effects me and
My ability to think.
Andre:
Wishing you a speedy recovery Ron. Take care.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
David Morey said:
'Thanks Dave that is great,? George's Grammars of Creation is a great
book about transcendence if you fancy it,? all about the need to think
about what may or may not lie beyond experience and how important this
has been in human culture,...'
Andre:
Lie 'beyond' experience
Joe to Andre and All:
I have to pay the consequences of the choice. Free will makes manifest
metaphysical restraints for manifestation in the DQ/SQ structure. Pardon
me I am mistaken!
Andre:
I'm sure you are pardoned Joe. Perhaps you could start by reading the
book named after the subject
Joe to Andre:
DQ experience itself is indefinable metaphysics.
Andre:
Huh?
Joe:
Consciousness of individuality coupled with life anchors a possibility
for describing an experience of indefinable reality. Metaphysics MOQ
accepts a reality of DQ/SQ experience in individuality. Sentient
dmb:
Looking at the archives, I can see that Marsha posted about 60 times in
November and 45 times in December. That's about twice as much as anyone else,
which means the discussion group was being dominated by incoherent drivel and
passive aggressive snark.
Andre:
Agreed dmb and good
Joe to Andre:
I do not doubt that there is a physical differentiation between men and
women. Both are sentient beings. What about angels?.
Andre:
Forget about angels Joe.
Joe:
What is the criteria for the differentiated aesthetic continuum? Language?
Andre:
The MoQ is the criteria Joe
Joe:
IMHO Man/Woman experience indefinable reality in differing perspectives.
Andre:
Not sure about this Joesince Northrop 'defines' reality as the
'undifferentiated aesthetic continuum' I doubt if there is a
differentiation in experience/perspective. Not even sure if one can
speak of 'man
Dan said to Marsha:
Sorry but this makes no sense at all. Obviously having a discussion here
is a waste of time. Goodbye.
Marsha replied:
Goodbye Dan.
Andre:
Congratulations Marsha. You've done it again. Pissing posters off with your
derisory and contemptible attitude towards what
Marsha asked Ron:
I posted the youtube presentation of the entire (read aloud) essay. You
may check my original post and I will post it again so you might be a
good listener. So what is your complaint?
Andre:
The part you did NOT bother to quote Marsha. And you know full well what
Ron
Marsha said:
If your speech is not useful and beneficial, teachers say, it is better to keep
silent.
Andre replied:
Given your record here on this Discuss one can only hope you apply this wisdom
to yourself.
You reap what you sow.
To which Marsha responded:
Record of what, and interpreted
Ron asked:
How can one ever hope for right way Thought-speech-listening what is
right way? Who deems it so? All those quotes juSt farts in the wind If
there is no standard for right way Thoughts , projections ?
Andre:
Hi Ron, perhaps it can be held up against Rta and dharma and see
On Nov 9, dmb posted an article from the New York Times opinion page:
When Socrates Met Phaedrus: Eros in Philosophy, by Simon Critchley.
Andre:
Subsequently dmb states that:
Critchley's article should be of interest to anyone in a Pirsig
discussion group - for obvious reasons.
Not being
Marsha to Ron:
Notice the questions to Andre began with who and whom? The questions
are pertaining to anatta, or small self?
Andre:
Who the heck do you think you are, on this discuss other than anatta?
And, by the way, you have it wrong. Anatta refers to 'no-self' which is
different to small
Marsha:
If your speech is not useful and beneficial, teachers say, it is better to keep
silent.
Andre:
Given your record here on this Discuss one can only hope you apply this wisdom
to yourself.
You reap what you sow.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http
Craig suggests:
DQ =def. the dreams stuff is made of.
Andre:
Or, perhaps a bit closer in line with the 'wisdom traditions': the stuff (DQ)
dreams (sq) are made of?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http
David M to Andre:
Not only is the pre-conceptual 'very little' it also does not exist, bit
odd, bit silly,...
Andre:
Okay David. Nitpicking an expression of speech. By 'very little' in the
context I used it I mean 'none'.
DM:
'...also there is something 'aforementioned' that 'generates' all
David M to Andre:
So until there is culture and language there is no experience?
Andre:
No, that's not what I'm saying. There is experience first after which we
try and find ways of describing this value. It is after the experience
we generate notions of 'banana taste', green or red colours
David M to Andre:
Glad to hear it. There is much more agreement here than my interpreters
seem to want to admit,...
Andre:
I am not sure what you are glad about David. Perhaps the part where I
said that 'There are many things going on at all levels about which I
have no knowledge
Marsha to Ron:
We disagree on a few points, but such is life. The differences, I
presume, are due to our different static life histories and present
circumstances and present experiences. Do you meditate on a regular basis?
Ron:
All the time.
Andre:
Yes, what else can Ron do when stretching
Marsha to Andre:
It was the best I could do with Ron's rather abbreviated comment:
Andre:
Bull! Now you are blaming Ron and not looking at your own incompetence.
I had said:
'I mean, that, together with the answer given to Ron above just
absolutely kills any decent discussion. A half baked
dmb:
In a certain sense, perception entails conception.
DM to dmb:
Yes in a certain sense I agree, but obviously in the full and normal
sense,conception is formal, abstract and based in language, so has
nothing to do with pre-conceptual percepts,
Andre:
Hugh? What strange twist of argument
DM to Andre:
I recognise tastes, colours, etc prior to concepts,...
Andre:
No you don't! You must have learned the recognition and the distinction.
You have learned what is what. Re-read Pirsig's These are transmitted
culturally. Any taste, colour, smell (not part of your own culture) you
.
It also demands intellectual honesty so that people respond to the
actual claims of others without reversing, ignoring or distorting them.
Andre:
I share your frustration dmb and it seems to me that despite Pirsig's
MoQ some posters/lurkers are so trapped in SOM that they really,
absolutely
Andre previously:
I share your frustration dmb and it seems to me that despite Pirsig's
MoQ some posters/lurkers are so trapped in SOM that they really,
absolutely cannot find their way through the words/concepts used. They
are still seen as a prison... as 'Marsha' does.
Marsha:
Proof
Marsha to Andre:
I not only agree with Mark that language is a kind of prison, but I also
think patterns are a kind of prison.
To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of
quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic
Quality, which
Marsha to Andre:
I take all static patterns of value as seriously as burnt umber, light
red, yellow ochre, cadmium yellow, cadmium scarlet, permanent rose,
alizarin red, winsor violet, french ultramarine, thalo blue, thalo
green, olive green and titanium. Your suspicions, on the other hand, I
D.Thomas to dmb:
But you must admit that Pirsig, from a philosophical perspective, is not
much on providing definitions.
Andre:
Huh? Only that which cannot be defined. Just look, as an example, to
Annotation 46 of Lila's Child. Furthermore about these
annotations...they can all be seen
Marsha to Andre (off-list):
What? You acknowledge dmb can't handle a simple discussion, relating
even to William James, without someone like you to run interference?
Andre:
First of all: I do not like ongoing discussions pertaining to Pirsig's
MoQ to be discussed off-list. Whatever your
Dave to Andre:
I think you are confusing me with David M. I haven't had post directed
at me from Horse in years.
Andre:
This is strange. I am directing my post to David T.(David Thomas) and am
getting a post back from 'Dave' who claims he hasn't received anything
from Horse in years
Arlo to Andre:
As for his China comment,I read it that by willfully living in China you
relinquish all validity in talking about socialist governance.
Andre:
Thank you Arlo, for clarifying the David from the David. I must still
have not recovered from the accident a have been suffering from
Dave :
So what both you are saying in flurry of sand is that neither direct
experience nor intellectual abstractions have any plain English
definitions. Because once you reject SOM, SOM (plain English) words and
definitions are meaningless under the MoQ.
Andre:
Perhaps the MoQ is meaningless
Marsha to Andre:
I have never claimed to be greater than a student of Buddhism, a mere
grasshopper, a bug.
Andre:
Grasshopper? Ah, a reference to David Carradine's 'Kung Fu' TV series?
I've always enjoyed that.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org
Marsha to Andre:
You might prefer the term analogue or ghost, but this does not change
that there is always a difference between the pattern and the dynamic,
unpatterned experience.
Andre:
It's good to see that you are finally away from this ridiculous notion
that DQ is none other than sq
Marsha to Andre:
What self? There's no one to kid, you kidder, you.
Andre:
Nice, Marsha. You must have learned that by heart by now. If, as you say
there is no self ( may I remind you we are discussing Pirsig's MoQ
here), that there is really no 'self' then you would not write these
words
Andre to Marsha:
I have no problems with this except for your use of the word
'projections'. I prefer to call them 'manifestations'. I see sq as a
'manifestation' of DQ. Form as a 'manifestation' of the formless. That
is why sq is grounded in DQ. For metaphysical reasons there must
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
Marsha stated to Andre:
I stated that the atomic bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and by
proxy the 'static world',j are 'conventionally' or 'conditionally' real. That should
have satisfied you.
Andre:
It obviously has not satisfied me one bit.
The terms mean certain things
Marsha to Andre (after he sought clarification of Lucy's use of the
words 'conventionally' and 'conditionally'):
Andre, What did 'illusion' mean to YOU when you posted: 'The world is an
illusion Brahman alone is real Brahman is the world'
In fact, I am not familiar with this MoQ ditty and I
1 - 100 of 1712 matches
Mail list logo
