[MD] pure experience (DQ)

[MarshaV]

Jan-Anders,

Your observation and advice would be mirroring what?  


Marsha 



On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:44 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:

> Hey Mark
> 
> Sorry about your father. I can see that you are really far out, trapped into something dangerous for you. You are a smart person that can make more people happy somewhere else than here.
> 
> Stop your worries about MOQ before your brain gets overloaded, take a serious brake, get a hobby, start baking cakes, play the guitar, with girls or do just whatever but not this. Don't write, don't read, use your senses, your hands and your feet.
> 
> Best wishes and welcome back later
> 
> Jan Anders
> 
> 21 jul 2012 kl. 10.01 skrev 118:
> 
>>>> Mark suggests:
>>>> The point is to free oneself from the static.  As you have stated
>>>> yourself, "beginner's mind".  Treat each post as something new,
>>>> without all that baggage that one brings with one.  Look beyond static
>>>> quality.  Look beyond the words in Lila and try to see what the
>>>> intentions of them were.  Words are just words, it is what the reader
>>>> does with them that matters.
>>>> 
>>>> Ant counters:
>>>> As I've said earlier, the reader is only half the story as regards a
>>>> piece of writing.  Otherwise, Hemingway would have never bothered writing (to
>>>> himself - in order to help maintain the quality of his writing) in "A
>>>> Moveable Feast": "All you have to do is write one true sentence.  Write
>>>> the truest sentence you know."
>> 
>> Mark provides a comment to Ant's counter:
>> This Hemingway example is very misguided.  Hemingway had no power over
>> the individual who reads his  books.  The Quality of Hemingway's
>> writing is a result of people liking his style.  The manner with which
>> he writes is inherent to his own creativity and discipline.  If you
>> find it to be of high quality, then good for you.  I have to assume
>> you are not telling others that they should view it as high quality,
>> for that would be contrary to MoQ.  There is no truth to what is
>> better.  It is all about Quality.
>> 
>> You should know better than to bring Truth into this discussion.
>> "True" should be replaced with "Quality", and then we revert to
>> Pirisg's quote on knowing what is good and bad.  Or does "the" MOQ
>> have nothing to do with what Pirsig has written?
> 
>