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

[MarshaV]

On Mar 26, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> 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.


Marsha:
Yes, I did start by stating it as such, but others found it confusing.  I have since revised, and corrected the state many, many, many times.



> 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?

Marsha:
As I now state it, it is sq is not other than DQ.  The fundamental nature of sq is DQ.   I've always advised that I'd be looking for better words, and I did.  



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

Marsha:
See above.  And I still reserve the right to change the statement if I find a better way to state it. 



> Why bother with the two terms then?

Marsha:
You figure that out.   



> 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.

Marsha:
I have no idea what you are talking about.  Maybe you study the dangling quote I posted until you agree with me.



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

Marsha:
I am pretty busy today; maybe you and dmb can talk amongst yourself.   


 
___