[MD] On the Development of, and the Functions of MoQ

[118]

Hi Andre,
As always your philosophy and logic is impeccable.  I do not find any
logical inconsistency in what you present, so I will leave it for the
records as another profound insight for MoQ on your part.  Keep up the
good work.  I certainly welcome any more revealing explanations of MoQ
from you.

I am not sure what you are interested in.  However, I hope that it
keeps you busy and brings many returns of the day.  I will stick with
Quality.

Cheers,
Mark

On 6/8/12, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark to Arlo:
>
> Let me start with an analogy.  What I perceive as the attitude of your post
> can be compared to the Buddhist concept of "clinging".  Buddhist thought
> seeks to dispel this static supremacy with the ideas of change and
> co-arising nature of existence.  In my view, the inherent premise of MoQ
> being one towards "betterness" does the same thing.  It is often difficult
> to adapt to the view which MoQ presents, and one must relieve oneself from
> typical Western appraisals of What IS.
>
> Andre:
> So says Mark, the self styled pontificate. Mark, you want so much to
> transform, change, reverse (!) and move-on from Pirsig's MoQ that you are
> questioning Anthony's answers to you, claiming he doesnt understand Quality
> properly (what the heck is there to 'understand' about Quality?), he
> misrepresents Ham, what does Anthony know about the MOQ anyway and, the most
> outrageous of all: what does Pirsig know about Quality anyway???
>
> You are presenting, in your flight from the MoQ (because it is static and
> therefore already stale and redundant and degenerate in your eyes) a path
> which everyone should take, under the misleading guise of 'thinking for
> yourself' (you suggested that Anthony doesn't even do that) and to get away
> from Pirsig's MoQ is the best way to ensure the best quality suggestions and
> answers. And what do I see in your posts, in which you present yourself as
> arrogantly condescending once again? Bullshit...nothing but confusing
> (SOM-based) bullshit.
>
> This is really embarrassing. (and please Mark, do not ask me where you are
> confused...to, as you Uria Heep-like, help you...) .I would not even know
> where to start. YOU are confused about EVERYTHING to do with Pirsig's
> MoQ....the 'development' and functions of the MoQ...pfffffffffffffffff (that
> is the sound of a deflating hot air balloon Mark!)
>
> I am not interested in YOUR MoQ. I am interested in Pirsig's MoQ. I have
> said this before. Since you suggest that Pirsig's MoQ should be abandoned
> (the scriptural dogmatic doctrine as you imply) and instead you advocate the
> bull that you, or Marsha for that matter, keep on spouting here, then I
> really am on the wrong discuss.
>
> And now I will relieve myself and wish a very hearty cheers to all.
> André
>
>
> 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
>