[MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics

[MarshaV]

On Oct 12, 2010, at 7:54 PM, X Acto wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>>>> Andre:
>>>> I used the term 'authority' because you used it. My 'judgements' are based on 
>>>> the
>>>> Annotations in LC (which clarify specific parts of ZMM and LILA), 
>> specifically
>>>> annotations 129,130,131,132,133 and 135.
>>>> 
>>>> When you read them carefully there is very little room for 'personal 
>>>> judgements' nor
>>>> 'interpretations' nor 'personal opinions'. They are pretty straightforward 
>>>> comments/
>>>> clarifications/observations/judgements from the man whose MOQ we are discussing 
>>>> here.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> Your 'judgements' are based on your 'interpretations' of annotations 
>>> 129,130,131,132,133 and 135.
>>> It is also your 'opinion' that they are "pretty straightforward 
>>> comment/clarifications/observations/judgements."
>>> Your 'opinion' also presumes RMP'S communications skills are absolute and 
>>> perfect.  I do not believe
>>> he has claimed such an infallible skill.
>>> 
>>> DanG was lucky enough to be able to ask RMP for clarification based on his 
>>> confusion.  
>>> 
> 
> Dan:
>> Hi Marsha
>> 
>> I've always believed that we make our own luck. LILA'S CHILD was a lot
>> of work, especially for someone with my background. I have no formal
>> education to speak of. And the idea for LC wasn't mine to begin
>> with... Bodvar Skutvik talked me into it. But once i started, I saw
>> the value there and put as much time into the project as was
>> practical. Actually, I neglected other areas of my life in order to
>> pursue it so in a sense what I did wasn't practical at all.
> 
>> You may not like Andre's style but so far as I can see, his comments
>> are spot on. I appreciate it when people like Andre, Paul Turner,
>> David Buchanan, Horse, and other thinkers find value in LILA'S CHILD.
>> Thank you all. But as far as me being lucky? No. There is no luck
>> involved. Just plain hard work and persistence.
> 
> Marsha:
> You may think Andre's comments are "spot on".  That's your opinion.
> I just don't think that the understanding of the MoQ can end with the LC, not 
> Andre's interpretation, and not even your interpretations of the annotations 
> as the LC's author.  For all the questions you asked there are many you 
> didn't.  Maybe you can concede that much.  And since it's publications maybe 
> many new questions have arisen.  I hate to see the MoQ limited by the few 
> questions that made it into your book.  I'd like to probe the MoQ deeply, and 
> I will not accept that all answers have already be established.  
> 
> Ron:
> That may be Marsha, but you don't even consider the questions, many of them
> the very same you and others raise, as being confirmed and validated by Robert 
> Pirsig, you consider them interpretations alone. You neglect that these 
> interpretations have been validated by RMP and the conclusions drawn from 
> 
> these validations run contrary to your own interpretations.
> Thats fine and dandy, but you really can't claim that your own interpretation 
> is closer to Roberts intended meaning, given that he has verified both Dan's
> and Daves interpretations. Unless of course you have been at the conferences
> and have been coresponding with RMP.
> 
> No?
> 
> then perhaps you should'nt be taking such a hard line in defence
> of what is mainly YOUR own interpretations, ones that have NOT
> been validated by RMP.
> 
> 
>  himself   
> 

Marsha:
I don't think I am taking a hard line defense towards any of my interpretations.  I 
am trying to explore the relationship between the MoQ and Mahayana Buddhism.
I do believe this connection has been acknowledge by RMP.



 
___