[MD] [Bulk] Re: logically incoherent

[MarshaV]

And?  



On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha, in her inimitable style responds to my assertions by giving another quote:
> 
> RMP:
> 
> "While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism recently out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen and published by Tuttle Publishing. I recommend you get it because it shows the similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I have seen."
> 
> Andre:
> So? What POINT are you trying to make Marsha? What are you trying to communicate here?
> 
> That DQ=sq?
> 
> That nothing is worth talking about on this MD because all is sq and all sq is an illusion anyway because it cannot claim inherent existence?
> 
> And following on from that: that therefore all is relative i.e meaningless?
> 
> That the MOQ= Experience?
> 
> We live in a conventional world Marsha. I know that. You know that (you have used it as an excuse...a way of slithering out of an argument. We all, on this Discuss know that.
> 
> You should know that you and I and all we know and find in dictionaries is composed of sq. Our own lives, our loves, relationships, the sun, the moon and the stars. We have made it into a grand theater. All are static patterns of value.
> 
> Sq is a manifestation of DQ. It is the stable 'part' of it. It stabilizes and preserves what has been gained. It protects this progress from degeneration. It protects this theater from degeneration. We all want to preserve this theater because it is beautiful no? It defines what we are. You may not like this but there you go. The liking/not liking belongs to the adolescent stage of development.
> 
> It simply is.
> 
> Phaedrus had his own 'radical bias' towards sq which caused him to neglect static patters of quality. 'Until now he had always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of anything'. (LILA, p 124)
> 
> In your words: they are an illusion. An obstacle perhaps, even misleading perhaps, a diversion perhaps...but sq is NOT in conflict with DQ (Reality).
> 
> Whatever point Ms Albahari is trying to make and you seem to have been quoting her regularly of late: sq does not conflict with DQ. In fact, if you follow Pirsig's argument... it preserves it.
> 
> To denigrate sq in the manner you have been shows very, very little understanding of the MOQ or of DQ.
> 
> This discuss is an attempt as well to preserve the progress we have made and, with the 'assistance'  of DQ it is an attempt to get us out of our own egocentric, narcissistic, individual thinking and create and re-create the world in which we live.
> Turning them into sq to preserve what we have gained and in this way building a better understanding of whatever we are on about. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other.
> 
> So, given your retort to my observations Marsha, by presenting us with the RMP quote: what are the similarities between Zen Buddhism and the MOQ? And I do not want to hear YOUR egocentric, narcissistic inspired reply. I want to hear YOUR explanation from an MOQ/Zen perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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


 
___