[MD] relative.

[Andre]

Marsha to dmb:

I am not going to defend relativism.

Andre:
Irony of ironies. You have been using your interpretation of 'relativism' to annihilate any suggestion, any idea, any interpretation people have put forward to enhance and or further the discussion at hand on this discuss on any topic you interfered with. For you, Marsha, this is not a discuss; it is a place to state your idea based on your 'experience' which you defend to the hilt by appealing to 'relativism'. I have experienced that my thoughts float by when I exercise mindfulness and therefore... You forget that your 'experience' is also an interpretation and therefore to chide Tuukka (for example) by suggesting that he hasn't read enough of the Buddhist philosophy that you are using to defend your stance is low quality indeed.

It stems from your continued conviction that DQ=sq, that the MOQ intellectual level =SOM, that your interpretation of your experience is high quality/absolute stuff and that any suggestion to the contrary is met with the term 'relative to'... and even using Anthony's  paper as justification, as therefore high quality protest because of it's truth claim.

It is ironic indeed to use relativism as a universal truth claim, as an absolute.

As Wilber has argued, even a child can have a satory experience, but the interpretation and therefore the meaning is confined/explained within the child's experience of the world.

Your explanation is based on you experience of the world and it appears to me quite egocentric and therefore narcissistic and does not contribute to the level of conversation on this discuss (granted a few exceptions of course, namely Joe who still considers emotions to be DQ because they are indefinable (which is bullshit)and has now added 'faith' as being indefinable as well so that can be counted as DQ as well so we end up suggesting that DQ is emotions and faith, making the MOQ as the metaphysics of biological responses to quality in hope of...? I mean, anything that cannot be defined is now DQ?? Crap!! No idea whatsoever about MOQ!!! The musical scale makes more sense to me)  i.e conversations which do try to explore and share ideas.

You just cannot admit that you may be wrong about certain things can you?!! Mind you, you're not the only one here on this discuss who is willing to accept his/her wrongness, misconception/ misunderstanding  about anything Pirsig has presented in the MOQ but you really take the cake.

You know my feelings about this, not that it bothers you because you re-turn straight into the attack by appealing to relativism...or authority (which is interesting because you reject authority when it does not suit and you appeal to authority when you want to make your point...which gets lost when you go on about relativism.........................................................................  :-(  .

You're still eeling in the same old bucket...and present yourself as the ever changing static...what was it again... the ever static changing...no the changing ever static...pattern...no the dynamic static within bounds of confines of dynamic patterns of statistically predictable, relative, not this not that processes...?

In other words I am right and the rest of you are wrong. Even Mr Pirsig. Well done Marsha. Keep up the good works. They are all yours.