[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[Heather Perella]

     [Mark]
> Get one thing absolutely clear?
> I work with the moq.

     I was thinking after I sent the last post to you.
 When I said coherence isn't MoQ, I meant to say,
thus, my mistake in not making myself very clear,
sorry, but what I meant is Pirsig doesn't use the
term.  Yet, this doesn't make coherence MoQ or not,
actually, it, as you state here, works with the moq. 
I did mention, if you didn't notice, that we are being
creative.  Being creative is exactly what the MoQ
offers and wants.  Using coherence clears much up, and
offers plenty useful, therefore does work with the
moq.  As I stated about sq latching dq, this isn't how
Pirsig used the term, and thus, I thought maybe this
might be confusing.  Yet, Pirsig defined the term, so,
in this case, I thought the term would be helpful and
familiar for those involved in MoQ.  Coherence works
very well actually with sq latching dq.  When sq
latches nothing, I've stated this could be described
as 'falling-back-upon-its'-no-self'.  Yet, what is
this return: this 'falling-back-upon-its'-no-self'? 
It would appear to be coherence.  Sq falling back upon
itself no-self, thus, sq patterns uniting, as
blue+yellow and with no-self involved we notice -
green.  Coherence, as I see it, is this return:  is
this 'falling-back-upon-its'-no-self'.  If I may use
coherence instead, it would be much more clear,
simple, and plain-spoken without any loose-ends.

     [Mark]  
> I don't try to do anything which harms the moq
> because i feel it is worth  
> getting off the ground.

     ok

     [Mark]
> If you want to bandy the term DQ around when it's
> supposed to be undefined  
> then fair play - just leave me out of it.


     Then don't use the term dq if you don't like it,
but it is plenty useful.  You use it at times.  I'm
not understanding you here.  You use it, but fight it.
 Maybe this is the same way I understand dq, which is
I can't grasp it, but I won't let go of it.


     [Mark]
> The only thing i can do is work with sq cos i can
> talk 'til the cows come  
> home about it without damaging the moq.


     Yet, you need dq, too, right?


     [Mark]  
> I leave DQ experiences to myself cos that is where
> my inspiration comes  from.

     And yet, you let me know dq inspires you, that's
not keeping it to yourself.  You've describe
'something' about dq to me, right?

     [Mark]
> If you wish to piss me about by being disingenuous,
> David 'cocksucker'  
> Buchanan style, then please leave me alone.

     I've got to ask.  What is the matter with you?  I
haven't said one thing to harm you, have I?  If I
have, then I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding this
kind of talk.  I thought I was discussing coherence,
code of art, stuckness, and etc..., but you seem to be
having a trust issue going on that has nothing to do
with me, at least not from my intention.  
     You started to talk this way in the last post,
but after I read that last post of yours and
responded, I went on to read the gav [MD] Men, boys,
and women, and also your rant and raving about dmb and
somebody else, Ant maybe?  Your spilling your anger
over upon our discussion, and I really don't think I
did anything to you, but your lashing out at me it
seems, or testing me, or challenging me to be like
dmb, it's really wierd.  I'm here to understand,
learn, have fun, practice quality intellectual talk,
and all in all practice quality that life is worth
living.  So, please, whatever is bothering you, don't
take it out on me, but I guess I don't have to discuss
with you anymore.  I guess I was holding out for those
insightful discussions we were having, but maybe your
not into that anymore.  

If I can help, I'll be here.
Peace be with you.


dark night,
SA




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com