[MD] expanded rationality

[Andre Broersen]

Marsha said to Andre:

Besides you combining and misrepresenting my different responses from different posts which address different issues and badly paraphrasing my statements, our perspectives are different, our interests are different, our styles are different, our experiences are different, our understandings are different, our points-of-view are different,...

Andre:
And never the twain shall meet with that type of attitude and my request of you to respond to my objections. I claim to do none of the accusations you post above.

Your conceptualization of Pirsig's MoQ is at fault whatever you post, whatever issue, whatever perspective BECAUSE they are based on your faillure to accept a distinction between DQ and sq. Your claim that DQ is none other than sq. This is a fundamental distinction which you fail to appreciate. Failing to do so creates your ongoing mess resulting in your confusion.

Furthermore you fail to accept that Pirsig's MoQ is a static intellectual pattern of value. A static representation of reality. You claim it is experience i.e. Reality itself.

You fail to accept the idea of latching which is crucial in terms of understanding the link between DQ and sq.

Plus, you still hold on to the Bodvarian notion that the intellectual level is SOM. I mean, your notion of the expansion of rationality to 'transform' one's 'natural tendency to reify self and world into the natural tendency to hold all static patterns of value to be hypothetical'.

I mean, for goodness sake Marsha! You really have not read ZMM properly...nor LILA.

And YOU call me rude? The above objections, which, I'll reiterate, you deny are nothing short of raping Pirsig's MoQ for your own purposes. The satisfaction of your own ego. You do not consider that rude? I would say that 'rude' is a euphemism in this instance!

Marsha:
Your comments concerning the MoQ I find quite dull and static.

Andre:
And you fall into repetition Marsha, again and again and again.

Anyway, have a nice day.