[MD] The first cut.

[MarshaV]

Hi Andre,

Thanks for the advice.  I'll take it as always,,, with a laugh.  


Marsha




Sent from my iPad

On Jan 21, 2012, at 1:19 PM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Marsha to dmb:
> 
> The transition from grow to latch to grow to latch to grow to latch is change.  In my definition the stabilizing factor is clearly stated in the statement:  "that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern".
> 
> Andre:
> Marsha continuing to try to pull the wooly over our eyes...in a sad and pathetic attempt to re-position herself from the statement that DQ=sq. It won't work Marsha. Static patterns do not change by themselves so they cannot change from 'within'. You continue to misrepresent and thereby distort the MOQ's fundamental division of DQ/sq.
> 
> Tell us: if Lila (the designated representative of organic/biological patterns in LILA) 'changes within a stable, predictable pattern' what does she (the biological pattern) change into? The same pattern but different or what?
> 
> Tell us: if Rigel (the designated representative of social patterns in LILA) 'changes within a stable, predictable pattern' what does he (the social pattern) change into?
> 
> Tell us: if Phaedrus (the designated representative of intellectual patterns in LILA)'changes within a stable, predictable pattern' what does he (the intellectual pattern) change into?
> 
> You argue that the 'change' is inherent within the stability of the pattern and this is clearly a contradiction of terms (as dmb pointed out).
> 
> It seems to me that, not only do you not understand the first cut of the MOQ: DQ/sq but you also have no idea what and or why Pirsig introduced the term 'latching' within the MOQ's evolutionary framework. Nor do you fully comprehend the reasons for suggesting such a phenomenon.
> 
> I urge you to re-read LILA...but make sure you empty you cup first as it will do away with lots of rubbish you are promulgating on this site under the banner of: but it is my experience!! and therefore Pirsig can be wrong.
> 
> I suggested to you before with all your 'mindfullness' stuff: whatever you find there it is your explanation of you find that holds the key, not the experience itself (whilst it should be the other way around of course, if only you could find the right words/level of intelligence to convey this manner of expression).