[MD] Keep on duckin'

[MarshaV]

Andre,

In one comment I was addressing Mark about my definition of Dynamic Quality and static patterns of Value.   And I might remind you the in the MoQ textbook it states that DQ is the fundamental nature of static quality.  And this is from a section on Nagarjuna and the MMK.  Maybe you have a different interpretation; that's your problem.  RMP correlates the static quality with the Buddhist's Śunyavada (maya, the conditioned), and Dynamic Quality with Sunyata (emptiness, the indeterminate).  -  if you would like to interpret things differently, be my guest.  

From the other post, my statement about language and static patterns being "kind of a prison," I did clarify to Dan with the word 'constraint.'   Whether you agree with my statement or not is of little consequence, but you changed the tenor of my statements. 

In the different posts I was speaking from different truths, my separate two truths.  If that is too much for you to handle, too bad. 

I stand by my statements as written.  If you cannot tolerate different opinions, too bad.  I'm here to explore the MoQ, and not to have a simpleton tell me in Cliff note simplicity, with "milk and cookie" colloquialisms what to think.  You should stick with dmb's posts.  


Marsha





On May 13, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha to Andre:
> I disagree with you.
> 
> I can take your comments out of different posts and out of different context sand string them together and switch words in my response to you.
> 
> Andre:
> This is your wriggling Marsha. Your statements are quite clear and consistent over many of your posts. There is no 'out of context', and I agree with you...there is a stringing together (on my part) of your statements. But I must emphasize: they are consistent. And consistently you say:
> 
> 'I not only agree with Mark that language is a kind of prison, but I also think patterns are a kind of prison'.
> 
> Next you say to Mark:
> "I could continue:  Static quality is Dynamic Quality.  Dynamic Quality is static quality.  Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality.  Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality".
> 
> Now what are we to make of this? Put two and two together and you say that Dynamic Quality is 'a kind of prison'.
> 
> This appears to me to be an enormity. An extremely wicked interpretation of Pirsig's  MOQ. In fact your position is the exact antithesis of what the MOQ is.
> 
> What will you do next? Deny that your 'patterns' are not what you mean by 'static quality'? That you do not really mean that DQ=sq? That I have it all wrong? That we continue to misunderstand you? That we are really at fault? That my interpretation is 'a reflection of [my] own static patterns' as you suggested yesterday?
> 
> How will you duck Marsha? Are you going to give is your standard response beginning with: "I am ever changing patterns of blah, blah blah..."?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___