[MD] Another parallel

Tue Jul 21 07:21:48 PDT 2009

Ron,

First, I have very little memory for such things in the past.  But I'm
amazed that this dribble has not been about the topic, the discussion or the
even MoQ, but about you getting even for some slight I made a year ago.
Good one Ron!  You really got me!  

I confess I have not been properly socialized.  Sorry again that I made you
feel bad.  It is not my intention to make anyone feel bad.      

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: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:13 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

you miss the point

I'm calling you out on your double standards

you were right to call it bullshit, because it is.

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:02:41 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

Ron,

What does one year ago have to do with this discussion?  But if I hurt your
pride, I'm sorry.  

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: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:54 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

Marsha,
The fact that you threw out your bible says alot,
Quality resides there as well.

Your path does not trouble me but your righteous
condemning double standards do.

you are the one that asked me to make the arguement

you are the one that pressed me to explain my view point.

When I did. you did'nt like it.

You called me out on something similar a year or so ago, you
called it bullshit to ask that other people only discuss in ways 
that you want to hear.

bullshit

remember?

-Ron

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:40:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

Ron,

What does your assumptions have to do with me.  I am not anti-intellectual.
I think ZMM and LILA are two of the greatest books ever written. (Tossed my
bible in the garbage a long time ago.)  I have a great respect for the MoQ
and Mr. Pirsig.  I think the four levels of static patterns equate to the
Buddhist' Conventional truth, and therefore the MoQ point-of-view with its
understanding of Dynamic Quality (Nothingness) is above it.  And yes, even
Intellectual patterns represent conventional-provisional reality. 

I'm investigating Quality.    

Your path to understanding is your path to understanding.  That mine is
different shouldn't trouble you so. 

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: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:19 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel

dmb says:
On what grounds are you declaring Ron's questions illegitimate and
undeserving of an answer?

Marsha:
They do not reflect my thinking.

To think too carefully tramples my experience.  Don't you get it?  -  I want
the MoQ to become the prevailing world-view in the West, with high quality
having a part in every decision made by every man, woman and child.

Ron's questions are nuts, and I will not give them serious consideration.
"Are his books worthless".  Ron's got some screws loose.  Ron may just be an
alpha-male needing some followers.  It ain't me babe!

Ron:
in MoQ thats actually a compliment, 
but

It really  says something when you defend your double standards with
discrediting those 
questions as insane.

It really does, it says you are too afraid that you may be mistaken to even
consider discussing it.

You allways fall to the gender issue when you feel intellectually
threatened. and you play
that card so very well.

instant relief from any sort of accountability for your words.

and I'm not thinking I know you, I just know your devices.

they are used by almost every religious fundementalist I ever 
had an intellectual discussion with.

Rons original Question:
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?

Ron clarifies:
Marsha the position you maintain is that you condemn anything DmB or I say
as said in SOM language and therefore is SOM thinking and academic.
I replied that Pirsig used SOM language and used academics as refference
and support for his ideas, but you do not consider his books to be SOM
thinking.
I ask what the distiction is.
I asked you that since you feel that all language is SOM and is SOM thinking
and we should kill SOM thinking, How would a you suggest then that, in your
own words "the MoQ to become the prevailing world-view in the West, with
high quality
having a part in every decision made by every man, woman and child." 
How do you suppose to do that when one may not speak of it or express this
desire intellectually. 

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/