[MD] relative.

[Andre]

Marsha to Andre:

I am accepting Ant's statement in the Textbook:

Andre:
Yes, and thereby you annihilate everything presented to you. The innermost message of Buddhism is positive not negative and you use the latter in your arguments . You do not understand Nagarjuna nor Hagan. Or should I say you still do not understand Pirsig's MOQ.

Again: you annihilate! DQ=sq? The intellectual level= SOM?  both fundamental ideas upon which the MOQ is based... you annihilate!

Why don't you simply state that your interpretation is not what the MOQ is on about? That your view is not conducive to understanding what Pirsig's MOQ points towards. It is positive, not negative and you present and argue for the reverse. (and if you should have any inkling of asking me about what I think the essence of the MOQ is then I would really be disappointed and think you ARE a sham).

(This reminding you that you have not responded to the other important issues in my post).

I am not stupid Marsha! You fall back on 'mindfulness'. What does that do to you? Can you maintain that just because it is your experience that therefore it is a universal truth? The experience is yours (and who knows how many other people have traversed that same path) but does that mean that the interpretation you give to you experience is true/yours and or universally applicable?

Some contributors have suggested to push S/O concepts (psychology, religion, philosophy, mythology, modernism, post modernism, down the throat of the MOQ but I would suggest the other way around...the way Pirsig suggested to apply the MOQ to psychotherapy (for example) on the AHP tapes. Use the MOQ as a template on existing theories but don't use existing theories to shove down the MOQ throat. This is the square hole and the round bit you try to fit. It doesn't work... and you damage the template.