[MD] a view

[MarshaV]

Arlo,

No good or bad implied here, but I tend to be more a theoretical 
thinker than a detail thinker.  You're wanting to get into the 
nitty-gritty which is exactly where I do not want to go.  And while 
I support family and community, I don't want to talk about them.  
I'm back to 'killing intellectual patterns', and adopting MY new, 
MoQ world-view (which seems to work well, for me), for now.  
I just landed here, with some comfort so I'm not willing to get 
shoved around by annoying details yet.  Unless, of course, 
you've found  a big hole to poke into it.  I know detail geniuses 
are important, nothing happens without them.  I tried hard to 
stay with you, but now I getting claustrophobia.   Hopefully, 
John can stay with you.  

And yes, even emptiness is empty.   
  

Marsha





On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:32 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [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...)
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___