[MD] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: MOQ and Completeness Theories, (Sorry, , Godel.)

[Andre Broersen]

Andre to Marsha:
By saying DQ=sq you are undermining Pirsig's MOQ.

Marsha to Andre:

No, Andre, you are misinterpreting what I said, which was "sq is not other than DQ."  The fundamental nature of sq is DQ.

Andre(on Mar,21,2011) referring to :
Marsha (Dec 18, 2010 to Tim): 'DQ is sq, sq is DQ. Most of us know this...' and further in the post she repeats it: 'Right. DQ is sq, sq is DQ.

Andre now:
So what is it going to be then Marsha? Have you said it or haven't you? By saying that 'sq is not other than DQ' you are simply repeating yourself. How can I (mis)interpret this in any other way?

You are saying the differentiated(sq)is not other than the undifferentiated (DQ).

Why bother with the two terms then?

This is the same as saying:the written is not other than the unwritten, the said is not other than the unsaid, the thought is not other than the un-thought, the lived is not other than the un-lived.

This renders every dynamic valuation (changed into sq)) meaningless: nihilism.