view, the transcendent experience of faith and worship is more
Dynamic than intellectual experience, and its patterns are further advanced,
Dynamically, than intellectual ones.
Mary:
This argument is around a lot. If science or the MoQ doesn't validate
religion - my religion anyway - then there's
. There is no place for this attitude in
the high country of the mind.
Best regards,
Mary
-Original Message-
From: Moq_Discuss [mailto:moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf
Of david
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:46 PM
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] [LS:9743] The social
I guess you agree with dmb? What's the point of your list? I think it's
run its course. If you are not willing to let people discuss in good faith
you should shut down. LS is free and open to everyone who has a point of
view.
Best,
Mary
-Original Message-
From: moq_discuss-boun
http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution
Best,
Mary
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
Not either or, but neither nor, so MU.
Marsha
Right, but when you're talking about static free will a few questions come
up.
[Marsha]
As an explanation, I think Dan paraphrases RMP best when he states that to
the extent that we follow static quality, there is no choice. By
27 jun 2011 kl. 18.44 sMarsha wrote:
Not to be repeating myself, I neither accept the notion of freewill,
nor reject it. Same goes with determinism and causation. I accept that
these are conventional (static) notions, but not Ultimately real. While
living within a conventional culture it
[dmb]
You can't say that reification is interdependent with the conceptualization
process or simply conceptualization reifies AND also say that concepts
are necessary to act in the world.
[Mary]
Why not?
The human brain is nothing more than the product of the evolution of
Pirsig's static
by comparing and relating them to
their respective ideal form.
[Mary]
With Plato, then, germinated the necessary preconditions for
monotheistic religion; for without an ideal that transcends observed
reality then the multitude of capricious gods would suffice.
[DMB]
...You can see here what James meant
, what are we saying?
which consequences are better and more consistant?
to say that they migrate or evolve toward betterness has more meaning, more
explanitory
power
than they evolve toward chaos.
don't you think?
[Mary]
I think that is misleading.
Betterness is a decision made by static
, at some level, to the well-being of
conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us
to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world—and there clearly
are—then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.
Mary: The Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) as developed
and wrong
can be based.(LILA, p 161)
On Apr 23, 2011, at 10:07 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Mary:
What do you use it for?
Ron:
an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be
based.(LILA,
p 161)
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:19 AM, X Acto xa
: Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of
conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us
to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world—and there clearly
are—then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.
Mary: The Metaphysics of Quality
'.
[Mary]
Agree, Andre. Betterness is a static pattern of value.
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
Isn't betterness always in context?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:49 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Disagree, Mary.
Betterness is not due to static patterns.
Perception of any Static patterns of value is due to betterness.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http
Andre:
I am reluctant to 'understand' DQ as 'betterness'.
Agree, Andre. Betterness is a static pattern of value.
Best,
Mary
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail
Hi Marsha,
Freedom is a static pattern of value we find useful.
Best,
Mary
On Tuesday, April 19, 2011, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Did these statements:
Attract?
Repel?
Both?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss
I see.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:41 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Mary,
There is also seeing without anything being seen.
Marsha
On Apr 13, 2011, at 2:07 AM, MarshaV wrote:
Hi Mary,
Those intellectual patterns block the non-verbal experience that is
available. And yes
Excellent, Marsha. Thank you.
The daffodils are already up down here.
- Mary
A total flip to a nondual understanding
is required; nondual when all the intellectual patterns are killed off long
enough to really, really see.
Luckily the daffodils will be open today, or for sure tomorrow
Hello Ron or Frank Booth,
Can you provide a link to the 1961 paper you cite? I am just a regular
human and not a scholar of Pirsig, so this info would be helpful to me.
Thanks!
Mary
-Original Message-
From: moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-boun
Hi Dan,
I don't know who you are. I used to think I did. What are you objecting
to? Are you always this rude to people? I find your comments unhelpful and
nasty without reason. Why don't you go Fxxx yourself?
Thanks,
Mary
-Original Message-
From: moq_discuss-boun
Hi Mark,
Sent this yesterday. See it didn't make it. Trying again...
Hi Mary,
In my post to Dan, I was trying to guess where Dan was coming from.
As such, my questions were leading. I loved your post below and will
discuss it.
[Mary]
Thank you! I think I took a few shortcuts to meaning
More technical difficulties it seems, so another resend...
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi again Mark and DMB by reference in a good way,
[Mark]
The selective force is then Quality instead of Natural selection,
which selects between all possible levels
Hello Ron,
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 8:49 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Mary, or whoever you are, I am not the character Frank.
Sorry to disapoint you, Pirsig scholar? how about doing
alittle research on what we are speaking about,
or you would'nt be making such claims.
I'm not even
Hello Dan,
[Dan]
I thought we were done with this SOM as intellect bullshit. Did you
not get Horse's memo?
[Mary]
Why don't you go Fxxx yourself?
[Dan]
Why am I kidding myself daily? Because you think SOM is intellect?
That just isn't right and we've been over and over and over it. The
notion
Hello Arlo,
[Arlo]
I changed the thread name, probably should've done that a few posts back.
[Mary]
Excellent! There are so many good ideas floating around in the
archives that cannot be easily recovered because they are buried in
some weird thread.
[Arlo]
As far as I've seen it, the issue has
[Ian]
Hi Mary, not sure why this is in this thread ?
I posted on International Women's Day recently.
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=3784
Thanks for the TED links.
Ian
Hi Ian,
Mark asked you:
Skirting around reality huh?
How do you do that?
Just helping you out. ;-)
Best,
Mary
On Thu, Mar
static place. I miss Bodvar Skutvik and I think you
do to. You did, after all, bring him up.
Best,
Mary
-Original Message-
From: moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Arlo Bensinger
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:54 AM
of
evolutionary history. You then operate within that acceptance.
So, let's look at what this means. Evolution dictates that what is
currently present is the result of the interactions between the outside
environment, and the individual species.
[Mary]
From a cause and effect perspective, I
Hello Arlo,
Pretty late for me on a 'school' night, but your excellent post deserves a
response - quickly.
[Mary]
I disagree with your interpretation of Bo's interpretation.
[Arlo]
I can tell by this start, that we are going to be in a big disagreement.
This sort of everything is interpretation
http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_wudunn_our_century_s_greatest_injustice.html
http://www.halftheskymovement.org/
Best,
Mary
-Original Message-
From: moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of 118
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:53
Hello John and Arlo,
-Original Message-
On Behalf Of John Carl
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 5:32 PM
Mary:
It's a matter of context. The MoQ is a paradigm shift. It resolves
the old platypi humanity has struggled with in the SOM paradigm.
Saying that there are no subjects
a moral argument. You can justify anything and the world just rolls
along as a big ball of objects with individual egos all having subjective
experiences.
Yuck.
Best,
Mary
Mary before to dmb:
The reason for my question refers back to a series of posts last weekin
which Marsha's statement that SPOVs
What a nice story, Joe. Thanks for sharing.
Best,
Mary
Hi Marsha,
I had this dream that I was a sperm cell penetrating an egg cell wall. The
egg destroyed my connection to my beautiful tail and left it in the soup. A
whole lot more of me was also destroyed, but I did what I could. I could
Hi Craig,
[Mary said]
DQ is undefined. That means you can't make any claims about it at all.
You can't say what it is or isn't, and you can't compare or analogize it
With anything that is known. Any and all words reduce it immediately to
something it is not. Correct?
[Craig]
IMHO
Hello David Harding,
Welcome to the forum!
I have appreciation for your posts this past week and encourage you to
continue.
We are all on a journey here. Your voice is refreshing.
Many thanks,
Mary
[David]
The analogy 'shines through in the present moment' is fine for Dynamic
Quality
middle way. It's inclusive. Because
as much as the universe was created for me, I was created for the
universe.
...
Free will is the basis of thought and rationality. It must be
presumed or yer screwed. Free will can't be removed from existence.
It plainly is.
Mary:
It's a matter of context
no idea what I'm doing here or
where y'all are comin' from. It doesn't make sense how you kick and
you squiqqle, just to avoid such an obvious point. Unless there is a
more fundamental problem than merely semantic. Which I think might
be the case.
[Mary]
John, all that exists is Quality
Hi DMB with Marsha referenced,
Let's take this apart one piece at a time.
[dmb]
I'm not sure who said to dmb:
[Mary]
It was me.
[Mary before]
If static latches are never-changing, somebody should be able to name
one. ...Nothing we can name is permanent, ergo 'ever changing' is
completely
Hi DMB,
Mary quoted something:
For centuries, philosophers from Plato forward have used the term
noetic to refer to experiences that pioneering psychologist William
James (1902) described as: …states of insight into depths of truth
unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations
of error but the plain term bogus will do just fine.
I'm really kind of stunned at how stupid this is getting...
[Mary]
Ditto, Dave, Ditto.
Hang in there, Dave. As for the dilemma? Your view of the change thing?
Reminds me of being a little bit pregnant.
Best,
Mary
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6
explanatory power even in a
non-space-time-centric universe. Sure, the 'things' (where 'things'
is in heavy ironic quotes) that comprise a level would be different,
but the logical methodology would still have applicability.
Mary said to Arlo:
I'm exposing the idea that Pirsig's MoQ offers a metaphysics
?
Permanence is an illusion just like subjects and objects are an illusion.
Best,
Mary
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
. Anything above
those inorganic patterns were wholly immaterial and non-existent to
them.
[Mary]
Agree entirely. When viewed from the top down, the levels are aware
of their predecessors, and as Pirsig points out, far from loving them,
hold them in a kind of smug disdain. A necessary evil
runs
through all 3 of these levels too. What's really sad to me was to
hear the unnecessary suffering it has caused in the laments of those
who were wailing, what did we do to deserve this?, as though the
earthquake and tsunami were personal. Really?
Best,
Mary
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo
value William James? I doubt it.
Pirsig knows this.
Best,
Mary
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:32 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Andre said to Marsha;
I apologize immediately Marsha because I do think you are genuinely upset
but, for goodness sake let your experience inform your
and neither is Ms. Seigfried.
[Mary]
Thank you, Marsha. DMB, you overextend with your statement. Shall we
debate what the meaning of the word is is? As a self-proclaimed
authority on all things Pirsig, you have an obligation to speak with
precision and clarity lest you be misconstrued as a dilettante
Hi John,
[John]
May I offer you a recent publication of my daughter Cassi's - who commented
upon her mythos in an 11th grade assignment.
Death of a Church from a Child's View
...
[Mary]
Excellent! Her point of view exhibits great maturity for high school;
and, I really enjoyed her outstanding
black people now have equal
rights. Was it the invention of the automated cotton harvester?
Best,
Mary
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:15 AM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the recommendation, Mary. I enjoyed it a lot, though it wasn't
quite what I expected. I didn't even notice
by
efficient use of resources. An example being an efficiently
functioning government vs. a corrupt or extravagant one.
But you could also take the question in another direction and ask,
can a computer produce art?
Best,
Mary
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http
Thoughts inspired by Arlo,
[Arlo]
One, can a computer be used in the production of art? (In this
scenario, the context includes the programmer, the software, its
coders, etc., in the same way a canvas and paint are used by a
painter, say.)
to (1) yes, of course
[Mary]
I agree, and also agree
and Phaedrus' mother is
the archetype moral Victorian. It is extraordinary.
Best,
Mary
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
Hi John,
It seems like harassment to me.
Maybe, but that has not been explained and until then might be an unfair
assessment.
What is the point?
Good question. The rules seem to differ by individual. For instance, I am
limited to 10kb. Marsha appears to be getting a bit more room.
Hello Ham, Mark, John, All,
[Someone]
If all things were the same, there would be no Quality.
[Mary replied]
Or maybe all would be Quality.
[Mark responded]:
If all things were the same, there would be no Quality.
Quality is what separates and differentiates. ..
[John added his
Meeting, or Sharepoint - which I also must be able to get to. For all I
know Outlook is trying to send a live video feed to MoQ-Discuss!
Say cheese,
Mary
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http
Hello 118,
. If
all things were the same, there would be no Quality.
Or maybe all would be Quality.
Mary
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
And then along comes Mary...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYJhhKSXOBofeature=related
-Original Message-
From: moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ARLO J BENSINGER
JR
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:57 PM
To: moq_discuss
Greetings Ian and John,
[John]
How does one weigh in on the side of the good, Ian? A good question.
Which begs the answer, doesn't it. You just do. Simply by asking the
question and asking sincerely (faithfully) one taps into the source.
[Mary]
I agree that we all know what is good, need we
January 14th, 2011 Charlie Rose interview with Bernard-Henri Levy,
reproduced in its entirety. You will not find this in written form
elsewhere.
Bernard-Henri Lévy, Michel Houellebecq, Public Enemies: Dueling Writers Take
on Each Other and the World, Random House, 2011, paperback.
I think
non-finito was a recurrent theme with Michelangelo, who would abandon works
when he realized he could not attain his ideal.
-Original Message-
From: moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of MarshaV
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011
the Social Level and make the Intellectual
impossible in that way too. Levy frames the debate as though these are the
only two alternatives. Is there not a third way?
- M
-Original Message-
From: Mary [mailto:marysonth...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:53 AM
To: moq_disc
have something
useful to say to us after all.
Best,
Mary
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
Hi Craig,
From: moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
craig...@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:03 AM
[Mary before]
the highest attainment of that metaphysics is a set
of PoVs which value symbol manipulation and science
Hello Arlo,
Nice discussion. Thank you for it.
[Arlo]
If it begins that all reality can be divided into DQ and SQ, then it
itself MUST be one of these things.
[Mary]
Agreed.
[Arlo]
I'd imagine that there most certainly will be a continuation of evolution,
but if we look at the MOQ we
Hello Arlo,
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 2:19 AM
[Arlo]
First, he makes it clear that SOM, NOT the intellectual level, is the cause
of the paradoxes he mentions. The primary one being that a metaphysical
system is PART of the reality it describes.
[Mary]
DQ is also part of the system he
Hello Tim!
What an impressive post! Your sincerity rings true. Thank you. I feel
moved to respond in kind.
[Tim]
The over-riding question: what progress?
The second question: and how is Marsha the Dam preventing it?
[Mary replies]
Many who are here have been here for a long, long time
Hello Arlo,
[Mary]
I wonder how long it's going to take someone to notice that the paradoxes
should be a red flag.
[Arlo]
And I wonder how long its going to take some to realize that paradox is
an
inherent feature of symbolic systems (since all representations of
reality
must contain
Hello Ham,
[Ham]
Welcome back, Mary, and Happy New Year to you all --
[Mary replies]
Thanks and Happy New Year to you as well!
You make a few points here I can't agree with. I wonder if we can make any
progress today?
[Ham]
If I am right, the paradox Platt and Ian are lamenting
or an
aggrandizing egomaniac - Who am I to pretend to know the darkest secrets of
the Universe?, he must say to himself.
So, he prevaricates.
Greetings and Happy New Year to all,
Mary
- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
-Original Message-
From: moq_discuss
... there's really no plausible medical reason why I should still be
alive, he wrote.
Maybe my DNA could say why.
Mary
- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss
Hi Dan,
Hi Mary
Forgive me, but I thought the Metaphysics of Quality is all about
patterns. But you could be right. Still, in the framework of
subject/object metaphysics, there are only subject and objects. If I
may ask, where are patterns located in such a scheme?
[Mary replies
Hi Horse,
On 10/10/2010 23:47, Mary wrote:
You see, SOM is all about patterns.
Isn't SOM all about Subjects and Objects?
[Mary replies]
Yes.
Explaining patterns, examining patterns, comparing and contrasting
patterns.
Patterns of what? Patterns of Subjects and Objects?
[Mary
Hi Marsha,
Hi Mary,
Marsha:
I think within the MoQ, the fourth level, the Intellectual Level, is
comprised of
intellectual static patterns of value. The way that these patterns
function is
as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and
manipulation.
Reification
Happy Birthday, John
Mary
The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
So happy, happy b-day, to khoo and me. I'm 51, entering the second half,
with a new game plan, so to speak. It's easy
Without generosity of spirit we see only what we are hard-wired to see, DMB
and Andre.
Best,
Mary
On Oct 10, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
Marsha to Andre:
And other than as a historical note, I'm not much
interested in W. James. Deal with it. Or not. Dmb's preference has
, just our disability.
Best,
Mary
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
.
Anyway, saw this one, John, and appreciate it! We have equal rights, but
that's not the same as being
equally right.
How about this corollary? We all equally have the right to be wrong.
Hugs,
Mary
- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
On Behalf Of John Carl
Sent
'
without presupposing subjects nor 'objectivism' without objects, capesche?
Why do I feel so strongly that Phaedrus would understand while the latter
day Pirsig would not? Well, that's ok. I've forgotten more than I remember
now too.
Best,
Mary
[Mary]
SODV is pandering to SOM. I am
Hi Marsha!
No biggie. Mainly trying to make a joke. Obviously, I failed! ... and
yes, I think you are right!
Best,
Mary
Hi Mary,
I wonder what this post is about. It is my understanding that to take
an
idea, like Radical Empiricism which is a hypothetical construct, and to
state
is not transposable to any other
stack, so it has little metaphysical value.
Many assertions of the MoQ are not directly transposable to any other stack.
Does that mean the MoQ has little metaphysical value?
Just asking.
Best,
Mary
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http
Marsha:
Radical Empiricism is a reified concept.
Hi Marsha,
One could add that the concept of 'concepts' is a reified concept too.
Best,
Mary
On Sep 3, 2010, at 5:44 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha said:
I do miss Bo. Because he kept the discussion centered on the MoQ's
fits within the 4 static levels
except Dynamic Quality and Eastern Thought? Do you see just how close we
are? If the SOM immune system would stop quibbling we'd have universal
agreement, don't you think?
Best,
Mary
- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
-Original
is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the
paramount demand is for rational objective knowledge, which denies the
existence of Quality.
Best,
Mary
Hi Mary,
Yes, 'concept' is a reified concept too. In Buddhism, the last word on
Emptiness is that 'Emptiness, too, is empty.' It seems
... Justice is blind; the blind cannot read printed laws; therefore, to
print laws cannot serve justice.
Justice will never be served for poor Justice if she cannot read the laws of
justice.
Oh, the injustice of it all!
Marsha said: Radical Empiricism is a reified concept.
dmb
Hi Marsha,
[Mary said]
The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where
the
paramount demand is for rational objective knowledge, which denies
the
existence of Quality.
[Marsha replied]
Quality being value? Quality being experience? Quality as Emptiness?
I
cannot
.
Best,
Mary
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
On Behalf Of X Acto
Trouble is Bodvars SOL did'nt recognize it as a western cultural
development
it was asserted as the evolutional development of the human race.
Why is this a trouble?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
a vague
recollection of any of it, but something about your formulation doesn't ring
true. I wonder if we can figure out what it is without quoting Gloria
Steinem?
Best,
Mary
Marsha,
I'd like to just sorta start from scratch on a few issues that you
brought
up, without doing the whole line
would say it is the only thing that is eternal.
Best,
Mary
People talk about DQ like its so mysterious and ineffable, but really
it's
SQ that's completely incomprehensible and mysterious. Nothing is
really
static, but it all seems like it is in the moment. What's up with
that?
Underlying
, and defend it? If it conflicts with value number
2 or number 487, that means one of two things. Either it is not really
number 1, or you do not really value number 2 or 487. That is what the
eraser is for.
Wishing the best for you,
Mary
- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization
Hi John,
Hey Mary,
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John,
I've been away for a few weeks and see that some bad things have
happened
in
my absence. Maybe I'll say something about all that later on -
assuming,
of
course, that my posts
[Arlo]
What I want, Mary, is for you to tell me what YOU think they are. You
said they
were patterns of value, a different stance than Bo's
create-a-new-metaphysical-entity stance, so I am asking what type you
think
they are. Are they a new kind? Or one of Pirsig's categories?
[Mary
How about In God we trust on the money?
Or
I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands.
One nation. UNDER GOD.
Indivisible. With liberty and justice for all.
Just trying to help out,
Mary
DMB, Arlo , Matt, anyone
Hi Mary,
Mary said:
Ok, but levels and POVs will never make any sense in terms of SOM,
which is what all of you are looking for, I guess.
...
And I was impressed with the good job you did of describing the
inadequacy. How can you have an inadequate understanding of that
which you so
Hi Platt,
Hi Mary,
Right you are. Pirsig agrees. The MOQ uses SOM intellect to make
itself
known, but the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or subject
or
anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by
reasoning
of any kind. SOM intellect doesn't tell us
questions and raising
objections in this thread, not Mary.
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
Hi Matt,
[Mary replies]
As I read Pirsig, a pattern of values of any level you pick is a
latching
of Dynamic Quality into Static Quality. It is one of many patterns
which
support the same value. I guess I don't understand [Arlo's]
sentence, So the
inorganic level is pattern
? Biological? Social? Intellectual?
Other??
[Mary replies]
I fully understand that you want me to say the levels are Intellectual
Patterns of Value. As discussed, of course they are! I am not intending to
be insulting, but feel compelled to say that this is the kindergarten
understanding
you one, Marsha.
Mary
Hi Mary,
We seem to wear the same set of spectacles. In the opinion of some,
this makes
us crazy. Pirsig was prescient in predicting how we would be viewed by
those
who are stuck with SOM spectacles:
The same is true of subjects and objects. The culture in which
is Lila an Inquiry into _Morals_, I would say that at the very least, he
missed a golden opportunity there.
Best,
Mary
On Aug 3, 2010, at 9:15 PM, Mary wrote:
I've been uneasy for many years with Lila the book. If you check
back in
the archives you will find where I objected
[Arlo had asked]
If it is not an inorganic or biological or social or intellectual
pattern of
value, what is it?
[Mary replies]
A pattern of values is exactly that - a pattern of values.
[Arlo]
Okay, but you aren't answering my question at all. Is the inorganic
level
itself
1 - 100 of 500 matches
Mail list logo
