[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[MarshaV]

On May 1, 2010, at 10:08 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha to Andre::
> 
> The MoQ is both 1.) a intellectual pattern explained by ZMM
> and LILA, and 2. a designation for Reality = Quality.
> Andre:
> So long as you are aware that it is a 'designation' and not
> reality itself as Bodvar  would have it.
> 
> Marsha:
> I have no reason to rely on your interpretation of Bo.
> 
> Andre:
> Bodvar has, on numerous occasions argued that the MOQ=Reality.

Marsha:
Okay, I can see MoQ being used as a designator would become 
MoQ = Quality = Reality, or MoQ = Reality.  I can live with that.  Maybe 
by your standards reality cannot even equal reality.  I can live with that too.
The definition of MoQ that I hold most close to my heart because I know it 
most intimately is:  Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience), 
which I formally extend to : MoQ = Reality is Quality(DQ(unpatterned experience)/static 
quality(patterned experience(inorganic,biological,social&Intellectual(SOM))))   


> He has also argued that the MOQ (because of this assumption)ipso facto
> cannot be a static intellectual PoV...which is correct, but total bullshit!

Marsha:   
I stated my view as the MoQ is both an explanation and the 
metaphysical assumption that reality = quality.   


> His definition of the intellectual PoV is the problem.
> I am not interpreting Marsha, I am using his very words.

Marsha:
And of course, because I do not agree with you, you think that I cannot 
read or interpret Bo's words for myself, and therefore you are going to
inform me.  

It was not Bo's arguments that convinced me that the Intellectual Level is 
SOM, but my own realization, more from my reading of Buddhist texts and 
thinking about it than anything Bo said.  If you remember I spent years 
arguing with Bo, and did at times get a little nasty too, but now I agree with him.  

I heard it suggested that Buddhist thought was a non-SOM intellectual-type of 
patterns.  But I gave my reasons for thinking otherwise.  If you reject my reasons
than you reject them.  Your rejection does not alter my thinking my reasons 
are correct, and that your interpretation is different.  


> 
> Marsha:
> It was my response to your "subject here and motorcycle there and never
> twain shall meet".  I thought it matched your ambivalence well.
> 
> Andre:
> My ambivalence about what?

Marsha:
You didn't seem to care what I wrote.  

    
> 
> Marsha:
> It makes reading and trying to understand your posts difficult.
> 
> Andre:
> I am truly sorry that my way of putting things in my posts makes their
> understanding difficult for you Marsha, and I do apologize. Whenever
> I get annoyed I turn to Australian colloquialisms to put force behind
> what I try to get across. Bodvar has been at this for over ten years and
> regardless of what anyone says, including Mr. Pirsig, he just continues
> his sales job.

Marsha:
Force?  You, and Ron too, remind me of a man who beats his wife 
and later tells her he beats her because he cares so much.  I don't
buy your excuse.    

Sure, it seems normal to lose ones temper once in a while, but...
 
You have not been designated Mr. Pirsig's spokesperson, or the MoQ's 
gatekeeper, and Mr. Pirsig has said there is no papal bull.  Bo has every 
right to argue his position until the cows come home.  



> Not only has he got your interpretation of the MOQ mixed
> up, I think he also stuffed Mary's interpretation up.
> I find this very, very sad.

Marsha:
I think Mary is quite responsible for her own interpretation.  She will think it
through to her own satisfaction, she's a very intelligent woman.  



> 
> Marsha:
> The MoQ is important to me, but not necessarily your interpretation.  
> I like my interpretation, but it could  change if I thought it appropriate.
> 
> Andre:
> Great! But change your interpretation then on the basis of what Pirsig
> says and do not let yourself be lead by Bodvar...or anyone else on this
> discuss. Find the arguments and presentations that are closest to those
> of Mr. Pirsig.

Marsha:
I will change my interpretation based on my own experience.  I think 
RMP would approve of that.  I think the MoQ is genius, and my 
interpretation works well for me.  If your interpretation is different, I can
accept that.  So what's your problem? 
   
  
> 
> Marsha:
> The known is an ever-changing, interrelated, impermanent, relative
> static pattern of value.  I see no reason to be too concerned with something
> that will, even for you, be changing and is impermanent.
> 
> Andre:
> Here you go again being evasive and finding your own way out of the
> back door if things get too hot for you! The 'known' is a static pattern of
> intellectual value. You are confusing static with dynamic.


Marsha:
I am not being evasive.  This is how I experience it.  This seems to bother 
a few people, but it is as real as real can be for me.  I've spent some of my 
time studying the nature of patterns.  Of course, my main interest has been 
looking at the social and "intellectual" patterns that flow through me.  They're 
not very interesting, but to see them flow has been most insightful.  


> 
> Marsha:
> To you, I may seem confused.   I know of no reason why that should
> concern me.
> 
> Andre:
> I think you are keeping your options open Marsha...by not being
> concerned about your own confusion. You need that back door.

Marsha:
No Andre, that's how it works for me.  But I guess you will think what you 
think.  


> Marsha:
> Why don't you work on yourself...
> 
> Andre:
> My patterns are working overtime Marsha. I keep on working on 'myself' all the time.
> I am continually ready to adapt, learn from others, admit my misunderstandings and
> or convictions, and readily admit that I was wrong at times...unlike some here on this
> discuss. If this, to you, is an expression of 'ego' then that is fine by me. I do not feel like
> proving anything about myself...just a healthy notion that loads of understandings are
> provisional.


Marsha:
How is your concern for what Bo, Mary, Platt or I think about the intellectual level 
relevant to you working on yourself?  



> 
> Marsha:
> Your opinion is your opinion, and has nothing to do with me.
> 
> Andre:
> I thought this discuss is about sharing opinions, interpretations of Mr. Pirsig's work:


Marsha:
You should share your opinion as much as you need to, but to think that it should have 
any impact on anyone is strange.  I write mostly to try to understand what I think.  Since 
I am so introverted it is difficult to share but I benefit by trying to find good words.  (Whether 
you agree or not with their meaning and implication.) 
     

> the MOQ. If you are not concerned about my opinions then ipso facto you are not
> concerned about anyone's opinions but your 'own'. Start another blogg Marsha...
> your own...in true SOM style. Because, as you argue: never the twain shall meet and
> we will remain those lovely, funny, lonely little isolated little units of subjects and objects.

Marsha:
I read all posts.  Whether they have an impact is another question.  But either way, I do not 
need to justify my participation.  And aren't you a little full of yourself to think you have 
the right to challenge my involvement?  



Marsha
 
___