[MD] All the way down

[Andre Broersen]

Marsha responding to Tim by referring to Marsha and dmb's interaction 
(phew!):

DQ is sq, sq is DQ.  Most of us know this, but it sounds like
Matt and Steve do not care to focus on a separate DQ experience.

Andre:
To keep on confusing, or rather suggesting that 'DQ is sq' is completely uprooting any kind of meaningful conversation Marsha, and certainly when talking about a static intellectual pattern of value called 'MOQ'.

By substituting one for the other you make talking about metaphysics impossible, you are making talk of 'history' impossible, you are making talk of 'evolution' meaningless. It reminds me of the episode where Phaedrus sat in class in Benares and asked the professor if Hiroshima had actually happened...if it was real?

There comes a time when you have to 'own up'. There IS a difference between static and Dynamic. Yes, they are related. They are related in their interdependency, their dependent-arising but that does not mean they are interchangeable. To confuse this relationship is to make anything conventionally meaningful, meaningless. Is that what you want? Reduce all to statements of 'relativity' to apply to all static patterns?

'Nothing is real, and nothing to get hum about'

This inevitably leads to nihilism Marsha. You may feel that way in your own life but here we are talking about a metaphysics. You make it sound like it is a different process to you. I get the feeling that you have no idea about this. In a very important way MOQ is biography. Don't generalize your own biography to stand for the one we are discussing. Many here on this discuss do that... and find fault with Mr. Pirsig.

Think again. Do not confuse Pirsig's MOQ with your own...He is a very smart and wise man. Sometimes wise men know us better than we think we know ourselves, and sometimes wise men are smarter than we think ourselves to be.