[MD] The first cut.

118 ununoctiums at gmail.com
Wed Jan 25 08:50:35 PST 2012 

Hi Marsha,

Duly noted.  I do not consider the interactions on the forum to be
gossip since the posts are open to everyone.  Gossip is talking behind
someone's back.  If I were you, I wouldn't worry about it.

Yes, I agree with you on Ham.  That was the premise behind my
humurous(?) post on the subject.  It was not directed towards you, but
more to the impression that any one of us is the spokesperson for MoQ,
outside of Pirsig.  I still have a hard time figuring out which one of
the avatars is Pirsig.  It is like one of those mystery games, and the
clues keep coming in. :-)

Cheers,
Mark

On 1/25/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Since you claim to have some knowledge of Buddhism, check out 'Right Speech'
> from the eight-fold path.  I don't talk negatively about MD posters offlist.
>  And I don't talk about LilaSquad posters where they are not able to defend
> themselves.  If I do have something unkind to say, I say it directly, not to
> a third party.  And I do not say nasty things behind an avatar disguise.
>
> Ham, misstated my position to Joe.  If I am unable to correct the statement,
> it is gossip in my book.  He he wants to ask me if I feel I am RMP's
> interpreter, I would certainly explain that I am not.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 25, 2012, at 10:58 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Marsha,
>> As you know, whenever you post something you are inviting debate.  If
>> you do not see it this way, then you are ignoring the process by which
>> a metaphysics becomes established.  I do ingnore your "existence", I
>> am addressing the words on a page.  I have no idea who you are nor am
>> I interested.
>>
>> Your "gossip" is all part of it.  We do not stand isolated from each
>> other even though the estrangement provided by the internet would
>> suggest such a thing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>> On 1/25/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings Horse,
>>>
>>> I know, but I don't appreciate gossip.   I am not an interpreter and
>>> never
>>> claimed to be.  I am exploring.   And maybe Mark misses me, but I wish
>>> he'd
>>> ignore my "existence".
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Horse wrote:
>>>
>>>> You've said this in the past Marsha but so far failed to last more than
>>>> a
>>>> few days!
>>>>
>>>> On 24/01/2012 19:49, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>> Greetings Horse,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I mentioned last week I'm happy to sit it out for a while.  I'm
>>>>> tired of all Mark's qustions.  It might be fun to watch from the peanut
>>>>> gallery for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt this will make any difference to Marsha, Dave - a lot of this
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> rooted in the SOM as Intellect debacle from some time ago. It doesn't
>>>>>> matter how much evidence you present or even if Pirsig himself joined
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the conversation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Horse
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/01/2012 18:40, david buchanan wrote:
>>>>>>> “A Dynamic advance is meaningless unless it can find some static
>>>>>>> pattern with which to protect itself from degeneration back to the
>>>>>>> conditions that existed before the advance was made.  Evolution can't
>>>>>>> be a continuous forward movement.  It must be a process of
>>>>>>> ratchet-like
>>>>>>> steps in which there is a Dynamic movement forward up some new
>>>>>>> incline
>>>>>>> and then, if the result looks successful, a static latching-on of the
>>>>>>> gain that has been made; then another Dynamic advance, then another
>>>>>>> static latch…” (LILA, end of Chapter 11)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Sometimes a Dynamic increment goes forward but can find no latching
>>>>>>> mechanism and so fails and slips back to a previous latched position.
>>>>>>> Whole species and cultures get lost this way. Sometimes a static
>>>>>>> pattern becomes so powerful that it prohibits any Dynamic moves
>>>>>>> forward. In both cases the evolutionary process is halted for a
>>>>>>> while.
>>>>>>> But when it's not halted the result has been an increase in power to
>>>>>>> control hostile forces or an increase in versatility or both. The
>>>>>>> increase in versatility is directed toward DQ. The increase in power
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> control hostile forces is directed toward static quality. Without DQ
>>>>>>> the organism cannot grow. Without static quality the organism cannot
>>>>>>> last. Both are needed." (LILA, end of chapter 11)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "When this understanding first broke through in Phaedrus' mind, that
>>>>>>> ethics and science had suddenly been integrated into a single system,
>>>>>>> he became so manic he couldn't think of anything else for days. The
>>>>>>> only time he had been more manic about an abstract idea was when he
>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>> first hit upon the idea of undefined Quality itself. The consequences
>>>>>>> of that first mania had been disastrous, and so now, this time, he
>>>>>>> told
>>>>>>> himself just to calm down and dig in. It was, for him, a great
>>>>>>> Dynamic
>>>>>>> breakthrough, but if he wanted to hang on to it he had better do some
>>>>>>> static latching as quickly and thoroughly as possible." (Lila, end of
>>>>>>> chapter 12)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> order. It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the
>>>>>>> stable condition which  gives man perfect satisfaction. ...Dharma is
>>>>>>> Quality itself, the principle of 'rightness' which gives structure
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving
>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>> of the universe which life has created." (LILA, Chapter 30)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "No, he did nothing for Quality or the Tao.  What benefited was
>>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>> He showed a way by which reason may be expanded to include elements
>>>>>>> that have previously been unassimilable and thus have been considered
>>>>>>> irrational." (ZAMM, p. 257)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "But now we have with us some concepts that greatly alter the whole
>>>>>>> understanding of things. Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific
>>>>>>> reality. Quality is the goal of Art." (ZAMM, p. 276)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I want to show that that classic pattern of rationality can be
>>>>>>> tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> formal recognition of Quality in its operation." (ZAMM, p. 278)
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> 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
> 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
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list