[MD] Ham & swiss cheese

[MarshaV]

At 08:41 AM 2/26/2006, Mike wrote:

>You have a good point: there hasn't been much MOQ-oriented discussion
>and interpretation around here at all recently. But I don't think the
>answer is to alienate or silence dissenters. And I especially don't
>think we should put up a placard saying "theists, take your business
>elsewhere". It is my belief that we have a lot to gain from
>investigating what the mysticism of the MOQ has in common with theism.

If one is identifying DQ with mysticism, what can be said about 
it.  Ham is insisting on trying to define the undefinable using <his> 
terms. It's undefinable. I think the true mystics have stated this 
fact.  RMP acknowledged this when he wrote:

"In the few diagrams I have made of the evolutionary structure of the MOQ,
Dynamic Quality is not part of the diagram.  Dynamic Quality is represented
by the paper the diagram is written on.  I like that device because there is
no diagram in the world that can contain the paper it is written on."
[Pirsig to Turner, Sept '05]

I'm not trying to discourage anybody's participation.  I'm suggesting 
that this was once a group dedicated to the MOQ, and wouldn't it be 
helpful if it were again.   I only wish I had the correct question to 
ask, let alone the answer.  Joseph Bromley has had some interesting 
things to say concerning democracy.
Where is The Lila Squad?


Marsha