[MD] Philosophy is deadly

[John Carl]

Ok, Andre, it does clarify it.  I'm familiar with dependent arising so I
understand the underlying concept.  I just didn't quite grasp yer
nomenclature there.

But I'm glad I got you into it, because it raises a question with my
understanding of the MoQ -

Thus, as my friend, who can read Chinese, said the other day, what is
> written by Lao Tzu is not the
> proper translation. It says directly: beauty IS ugliness, good IS evil. But
> to say this to a Westerner
> 'lost in our linear linguistic translation' this makes no sense. Thus, to
> make it somehow palatable and
> understandable it is poetically translated as:
>


Yes, I agree to my western "ears" that makes no sense.  It's like saying
there is no such thing as Quality.



>
> 'Therefore having and not having arise together.
> Difficult and easy complement each other.
> Long and short contrast each other.
> High and low rest upon each other.
> Voice and sound harmonize each other.
> Front and back follow one another'.
>
> These dualisms do not 'oppose' nor 'confront' each other. They imply each
> other. Complement each other
> because they arise together. The one IS the other at the same time. Thus
> the no-two dualism.
>
> What Mr. Pirsig MOQ has done in the MOQ is the same thing with regards to
>  the conventional idea of
> subjects and objects!
>

Isn't the MoQ a monism?    Isn't Quality, Good?  How can one say Quality is
bad and good? That takes away the value of Quality.



>  And,please remember that he wrote for a Western audience
> continuing/improving mainstream American
> pragmatic philosophy.
>
> imho.
>
> I hope this clarifies it for you.
>
>
Enough so that I beg for more!

John