[MD] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: empathy

[MarshaV]

Andre,

After reading your post (at the bottom 6:41 pm) I didn't know what point you were trying to make.   If you were simply asking if I thought myself to be a mystic, my answer is no.   


Marsha  




> On Mar 19, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> 
> Andre:
> Hello MOQ'ers!
> Those who are left on this discuss to talk about Pirsig's MOQ are now called dogmatists! Any attempt and/or counter argument citing Pirsig and other supporting evidence (e.g. James) used by these dogmatic MOQ contributors to point to the misconceptions/misunderstandings/dead ends/irrelevancies to Pirsig's MOQ  by other posters are in their turn asked to justify their premise through misunderstanding or simple ignorance or bloody minded stubbornness ( Mark suggesting to dmb that he (Mark) has 'yet to see some fundamental premises of MoQ coming through your posts'... obviously never even read the archives and dmb's impressive energy put in every post he has posted!!). This is really frustrating and insulting!
> 
> So when Marsha asks me to clarify my point ( Marsha confuses DQ with sq) she claims "I do not get it'.
> And John is still after confirmation of his 'Absolute' Roycean flavour.
> 
> I am sorry but to have the tables turned on 'dogmatists' for proof and supportive evidence whilst quoting this evidence from its original source and supporting ideas mentioned in that original source and then ( by the so called non-dogmatists) to still claim ignorance is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
> 
> My only recourse left is to urge Mark, Marsha, John etc to read ZMM and LILA. It is that simple. Then we can have a conversation.





>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
>>  
>> Andre:
>> Are you by any chance trying to echo the way Mr. Pirsig dealt with the mystic's objections to a Metaphysics of Quality Marsha? (Chapter 5, pp 67/8) It seems to me that your comments are an attempt to reflect a dynamic perspective? I also seem to remember that you, as Bodvar did, see Pirsig's MOQ as Reality. In other words the MOQ IS experience, the MOQ IS Quality, the MOQ IS Reality... . Is this the 'paradox' you are hinting at...that from your perspective it is possible to 'ache'?
>> 
>> You consider yourself a mystic Marsha?
>> 
>> From this perspective it is impossible to be 'aching for the people in Japan' since 'aching', 'people' and 'Japan' make no sense from a dynamic perspective. The conjunctive relation 'for' also makes no sense from this perspective since Quality is designated as 'the continuing flux', the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum'. These aforementioned nouns and their relations are static representations/ abstractions... you know, as posted on this list before in terms of the 'ladle' and the 'water'.
>> 
>> Sounds like you're quite impressed with this perspective Marsha, a perspective within which you seem to feel quite comfortable. Reminds me of the time I worked in psychiatry when a colleague (psychiatric nurse) told me that, in one way, it was wonderful to be labeled insane... because the person was never held responsible for their actions or verbalizations. No, it was their 'insanity' talking and controlling...!
>> 
>> Mr. Pirsig knows something about this state:
>> 'The only time he had been more manic about an abstract idea was when he had first hit upon the idea of undefined Quality itself. The consequences of that first mania had been disastrous, and so now, this time, he told himself just to calm down and dig in. It was, for him, a great Dynamic breakthrough, but if he wanted to hang on to it he had better do some static latching as quickly and thoroughly as possible.(LILA, p 161)
>> 
>> Sounds like very sound advice to me. After all we are here to talk about Pirsig's MOQ which is a static intellectual pattern of value. No paradox of any sort. Aching is a biological response to quality.
>> 
>> Sticks and stones wont break my bones... (a la Tom Waits).

 

>>> On Mar 17, 2011, at 4:33 PM, MarshaV wrote:
>>> 
>>> Marsha to Andre:
>>> Bugger off!  Do you understand the word paradox?
___