[MD] Pirsig's revenge

[MarshaV]

On Mar 10, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha to Andre:
> Very literal interpretation, indeed!
> 
> Andre:
> It seems to me a high quality endeavour to be as clear as possible
> about Bodvar's SOL and your allegiance to it because Bodvar is, at
> times speaking in confused riddles due to English being his second (?)
> language. But then again, so is mine.
> 
> Marsha:
> Here's two possible truths: The MoQ represents simply a static
> intellectual pattern and the MoQ represents an ultimate Quality
> reality (Emptiness).
> 
> Andre:
> I like the way you use the word 'represents'.It is a key word in this context.
> 
> The MoQ does not represent but IS a static intellectual pattern of quality.

Marsha:
I understand it differently, to me 'MoQ' is the name/label of an intellectual 
pattern of quality.  The pattern is opposite-from-non-MoQ.  I hope this
is not too esoteric to follow.  The double negative seems the best way, the 
most complete way to describe a pattern and also its variations.     


> The MoQ does NOT represent an ultimate Quality reality. (The Tao that
> can be named is not the eternal Tao).


Marsha:
The MoQ represents an ultimate Quality reality as much as Emptiness represents 
an ultimate Empty reality, or as much as representing the Tao as the mother of
all names.  For me the ultimate Quality reality is unpatterned experience and
patterned experience; that's all I'll ever know of it.  I think.


> The MoQ represents DQ/SQ... from a 'conventional perspective.( the
> names of the ten thousand things).It is the  finger pointing.
> 
>> From a dynamic perspective the MoQ does not exist.

Marsha:
What was Mara's last temptation to the Buddha?  

I am but a bug, and so my words are immature.   I know I am trying to reach 
far beyond bugdom, and that's what you are reading here: my reaching.   I 
apologize for my attempts, and for sounding so arrogantly, hokey.   


> 
> Marsha:
> I am learning to LOVE paradox...
> 
> Andre:
> So do I, but not to spout at any Tom, Dick, Harry or Mary's response.
> The paradox challenges us to find its complementary basis thereby,
> hopefully, leading us to a bit of wisdom. It's not to be used in an
> obstructionist way but to understand things, and their relationships
> better, so that the quality improves.

Marsha:
I'm sorry you feel I'm an obstructionist.  I am trying to speak my experience.  
I think that is to be expected.  Please feel free to ignore me.  


> 
> Marsha:
> p.s.  Much of the aim of the Mahayana variety is to break down the
> illusion that subject and objects exist independently.   SOM must be
> seen as a problem there too.
> 
> Andre:
> That is why I do not understand your allegiance to the SOL. SOM has
> been a problem (metaphysically) but Mr.Pirsig through the MoQ has
> rectified this (at least metaphysically).

Marsha:
Conventionally speaking, I do happen to think that the fourth intellectual level 
represents a formalized subject/object perspective, a SOM.  And I think that 
an emerging MoQ (5th) level which encompasses all prior four static levels is a 
better representation.  But, of course, all representations are going to be 
less than the experience.  

This was a mean question, and I am unhappy with my response.  
 
 
 
Marsha  
 
 
 
 

___