[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[MarshaV]

On May 2, 2010, at 4:43 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha to Andre:
> 
> 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))))
> 
> I stated my view as the MoQ is both an explanation and the
> metaphysical assumption that reality = quality.
> 
> Andre:
> Quality is the 'ineffable'. The MOQ is a high quality, static, intellectual explanation of static experience as it is abstracted from pure, immediate experience. It has placed this experience within an evolutionary framework.

RMP has written that 'Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable".  He has also used synonyms for Quality: Value, Reality and Experience.  My interpretation is that MoQ is 1.) a designator for RMP's theory that reality is value as represented in ZMM LILA and other writings, and 2.) a designator for the metaphysical assumption that Quality = Reality.   Two truths!   Even the word 'Quality' is a designator for the that which cannot be expressed by words, the ineffable.


> 
> Marsha:
> 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.
> 
> Andre:
> In SOM, pre-intellectual empirical reality of value does not exist. SOM holds subjects and objects as primary. We are 'subjects' experiencing an 'objective' world 'out there'. Is that what you are convinced of?

When I held the SOM point-of-view, I was convinced that world was composed of subjects and objects.  Now I hold a MoQ point-of-view and am convinced the world is composed of unpatterned experience (Dynamic Quality) and patterned experience (static quality or value).


> 
> Marsha:
> You didn't seem to care what I wrote.
> 
> Andre:
> If I don't care about what you write, why should I bother with this conversation?

Maybe you just want another venue from which to attack Bo's idea.   That's how it seemed to me because you wrote so much about him.   'Bo this.  Bo that.'  


> 
> 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.
> 
> Andre:
> You are also capable of some pretty low quality observations. I was applying force to my own argument Marsha...not to anything or anybody else.

I acknowledge I, too, can be quite nasty.  The more I think about entanglement, the more I know that is a habit to break.  Calling someone a 'fucking salesman' is not using force to promote your ideas.  It is simply a ad hominem attack.  And calling someone's ideas 'stupid' is a sneaky ad hominem attack.  


> 
> Marsha:
> 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.
> 
> Andre:
> Absolutely right. And even though Mr.Pirsig has said this of his own words with regards to the intellectual level that surely doesn't mean that any old interpretation goes. Mr. Pirsig has stated that Bodvar's (and Platt's)interpretation 'undermines'the essence of the MOQ.
> 
> And the cows will still be coming home long after you and I and Bodvar have left.

I don't believe Mr. Pirsig's rejection was decisive.  If you understand it differently, then our understandings differ.   


> 
> 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.
> 
> Andre:
> Totally agree. But very intelligent people are capable of being confused no?

And it is equally quite possible that you are confused.   


> 
> 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.
> 
> Andre:
> Oh. Okay, since you only talk to yourself to help yourself understand yourself, why not write your own blog?
> 
> Over and out.

I didn't say I only talk to myself, I also enjoy the feedback.  Sometimes the feedback is helpful, sometimes it is not.



Marsha

 
___