[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Marsha,

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:05 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> I have my interpretation of the MoQ, and where it agrees with Bo it agrees with Bo, and
> that is that.   If I change my mind it will be because I change my mind, and not to be
> included in a consensus.


Steve:
I understand that, and agree that the popularity of an idea is
irrelevant to its validity. I only chimed in to agree because it seems
like DMB and I always disagree lately, but our disagreements are only
there because we have a background of agreement. For example, Bo and I
are so far apart that I can't even tell where our disagreement starts.

Best,
Steve






Here's two quotes:
>  that I like:
>
>
> ``Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and
> true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of
> philosophic explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking
> something down into subjects and predicates. What I mean (and
> everybody else means) by the word quality cannot be broken down
> into subjects and predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious
> but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct.
>   (ZMM, Chapter 20)
>
> "The question of "How do you justify the statement that Quality
> equals reality?" was the best one. The correct answer from a
> MOQ perspective is, "by the harmony it produces", but this
> answer is only for people who already understand the MOQ.
> Those who don't can't see the harmony and for them this
> answer is meaningless."
>  (Pirsig, 2000)
>
> I cannot say this of you, but neither Andre, nor dmb seem to display
> a sense of harmony.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Marsha
>