[MD] a view

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Marsha]
But more than that I thinking this is getting too nit-picky.

[Arlo]
Well, Marsha, you are the one who keeps posting that quote. I would think that
examining it, maybe expressing it better, wouldn't be "nit-picky". 

[Marsha]
This rewriting seems to be static-making...

[Arlo]
Um, how is it any more "static-making" than Pirsig's original "rewrite" of the
Buddhist quote? A rewrite you post here very often... 

[Marsha]
.. and I find that uncomfortable, like I'm being forced into a corner.

[Arlo]
Again, Marsha, I'm not sure why talking about a quote, problematizing it,
rebuilding it, is something that makes you uncomfortable. Shouldn't we be
seeking clarity, rather than just copy/pasting bits and pieces of a
uncriticizable Holy Writ? It doesn't seem to be making John or Bo
uncomfortable, and I am disagreeing with them more than with you I think...

[Marsha]
Way too much detail!!!!! 

[Arlo]
Well, again, forgive me for thinking the purpose of a philosophy forum was to
discuss "details" like this... I mean, c'mon, why not write Pirsig and tell him
LILA was "way too much detail!!!"...

[Marsha]
I like the image of the yin-yang tango, but I think even it is too confining.  

[Arlo]
All metaphors are confining, but that is all we have. Even the best of
paintings omits more than it presents, the best song can point to only a small
fraction of the human experience. So, ultimately, yes, even the "yin-yang"
metaphor must dissolve before the ineffable. (Of course, even the MOQ is "too
confining" in this light, as an analogy, they all are...)