[MD] Another parallel

Mon Jul 20 06:25:50 PDT 2009

I'm just trying to understand what the fuck
you mean 

________________________________
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 9:01:04 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

Ron,

Are you another alpha-male who keeps looking over their shoulder and seeing no one becomes sarcastic and bitter?  

Bite me!

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 8:42 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

Marsha, Bo,
I would like to know, since you folks think MoQ is reality
and SOM is intellect , MoQ being indefinable, how may it have
more explanitory power if one's focus is on killing those explainations?

Are his books worthless since there are works of SOM?

writing here is then a waste of time and goes against the
indefinability of reality. any thing that is written is SOM
and all concepts being SOM.

why do you contribute if this is how you view the situation
arent you violating your own values? is'nt anything you 
write "not it". why waste words? why bother?
-Ron

curious

________________________________
From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 2:40:14 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

dmb said:
... James refers to this using the phrase "pure experience" or "the immediate flux of life". James says that subjects and objects are "derived" from this or that this "furnishes the material to our later reflection with it's conceptual categories". Pirsig says subject and objects "spring" from this.
Bo replied:
Right, we are now in ZAMM at the stage that followed the Quality epiphany. 

dmb says:
Nope. The particular phrases above (in quotes) come from the end of chapter 29 in Lila. And I'm talking in general about the MOQ as it is presented in both books. Your focus on "the drawing of a diagram of the new Quality-based metaphysics", which comes from the middle of the first book, is a case of arrested development. To ignore the rest of ZAMM and most of Lila leads to more errors than I can count. You say, for example, that this "resulted in the the Romantic/Classic where the former is DQ and the latter is SQ". This is quite confused. DQ is not romantic thinking. It is not any kind of thinking. Classic and romantic would both be classified as static the way Aristotle and Plato are both philosophers, they way Hume and Hegel are both philosophers.  

Bo said:
Not to give you a chance of disappearing behind you academic smoke-screen I leave it here.

dmb says:
Academic smoke screen? I find it very difficult to respect your bias against learning. It seems you are rejecting the very thing that could help you climb out of that old cup of tea, where you've been swimming around in circles since we met in the mid 1990s. What's worse, you seem to be condemning me for NOT swishing old tea around. I mean, from my perspective, you're hopelessly trapped in a static prison of your own making when somebody tries to throw you a life-line you just get angry about it. It's some kind of solipsistic Stockholm syndrome wherein you are the prisoner and the guard. 

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.
http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/