[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[Krimel]

[Bo]
Tell me the thick-headed the explanatory force of declaring Reality = X 
without the X having some "creation", "fall-out" or "expression"? As not 
to give you a chance to escape out on some tangent I limit myself  to 
this issue.  

[Krimel]
Ok, the Pollyanna in me is forcing me to respond but she really hurt my arm.


Reality=X in the language of pseudo-math could only mean that Reality is
undefined. Whatever we say about it misses something and perhaps something
important. 

Marsha seems to get this with her frequent "not this, not that" mantra but I
think that misses the point as well. It isn't not "not this, not that"
either. Sometimes it really is this or that or close enough for government
work or at least good enough to talk about in those terms.

Reality in the Capital R sense isn't just undefined it is utterly
meaningless. Meaning is something we humans make out of Reality. Marsha and
the dmb AWGIs kind of get this but seem to think it suggests that there is
no reality at all. That is not the way I understand either the MoQ or
Buddhism for that matter. We decide for ourselves what Reality equals and
what "qualities" it possesses. Pirsig, the way I read him, is saying that
the best way to begin constructing meaning is to look for patterns. 

All else is commentary.