[MD] Moving on

[118]

Hi Andre,
Nice to hear you pipe in with some very intelligent points.

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark to Arlo:
>
> Maybe a clarification in how I am using terms here is appropriate. When I
> say "religious", I am referring to the dogmatic dictatorial leadership of
> something like the Christian Church.
>
> Andre:
> And I would suggest that, maybe Mark, you are off course here from an MoQ
> perspective.

Mark:
I would suggest to you Andre that I am not.  If you feel I am then
please explain.  Pirsig is anti-religion, and so am I.  Seems right in
line with MoQ to me.
>
> Mark:
> Moving over to MoQ.  We seem to be parcing the words which Pirsig spoke or
> wrote in the same manner as the bible is read by many.  We throw out quotes
> to show how right we are.  I find this to be religious.
>
> Andre:
> And here you have it. Slipped back into a SOM perspective. NOT MoQ.

Mark:
And here you present a statement which is quite incorrect and you know
it.  Please explain why I have slipped back into SOM.  Is not using
the objective quotes by some subject as some sort of proof somewhat
incongruous with MoQ.  Is it not saying that the quotes are TRUE and
therefore irrefutable completely at odds with MoQ?  The MoQ
perspective would be that a rhetorical argument begins with a
convincing display of why and wherefore.  I can find any quotes I want
in Lila to support any perspective I want.  Placing a single quote
completely without context is not very MoQ, now is it.  Perhaps that
is all that you have in your arsenal.  Go ahead, throw quotes at me if
you cannot find your own words.  I would throw them right back at you,
but that would be pointless ping pong philosophy.
>
> Mark:
> I believe we need to understand what we are trying to do by leaving it
> undefined.  In older customs, such denial of definition required meditation,
> yoga, (yes even) prayer, personal teacher, in order to achieve an
> understanding. Again, this does not work in our modern world of "explain to
> me with words" society.  We know what undefined means.
>
> Andre:
> And what does 'undefined' mean then Mark? ...to appease our 'modern'
> society?

We are saying that a definition does not Quality make.  Get it old
wise one?  Basic MoQ if you ask me.
>
> Mark:
> With such knowledge we can then move forward and discuss Quality.
>
> Andre:
> Want to repeat ZMM and the first seven chapters of LILA?

Mark:
Exactly my point, thanks for agreeing with me on that one.
Definitions are used so that we can discuss something.  Was the word
Quality used in either "Zen Motorcycle Maintenance" (as you insist on
calling it) or Lila.  Gee, fancy that.  I suppose the word does not
mean anything to you however and when you use it, it is without
meaning.  Why don't you use a different word then?  It would be the
same thing "some undefined word".  How about Snarkley.  Nobody will
ever know what that means so we do not have to worry about definitions
there.  Silly old man.
>
> Mark:
> Any discussion requires objective definitions.  These are simply tools and
> do not bind Quality unless we let them.  We are not so degenerate.
>
> Andre:
> This completely contradicts the previous statement in your post. Are you
> speaking for yourself or others? In other words are you projecting...which
> is the same thing?

Funny, I do not see any contradiction.  Who is the one projecting
there.  You seem to be arguing with your own understanding of what I
am writing.  Not much I can do about that except watch you talk to
yourself.
>
> Mark:
> In terms of theism.  I personally do not have a problem with that word since
> it implies knowing of that which cannot be defined.
>
> Andre:
> I really think you are deluding yourself Mark...but, of course cannot
> confirm. I think you want certainty. Ha! Be yourself and you have it...but
> stop talking bullshit to Anthony (among other people). Who the fuck do you
> think you are...just because you happen to live in California? I only know
> one thing about that state: Swartzenegger and California Dreaming. Are you
> the mamma, the pappa or fucking both?!!

Hmmm... Deluding myself.  Would that mean I am not subjecting myself
to some Truth about theism?  You are the one who wants certainty, all
have is discussion.  You really have no idea what I am talking about
do you?  If what I say is bullshit to you it simply implies that this
is the only way you know how to interpret what I say.  Stand to
reason, my friend.  You wouldn't know bullshit if it hit you in the
face, buddy.

Andre, the Governator is from your part of the world.  He was a cheap
import.  Where do you find these guys that you send over here?  Is
that the best you have got?  Now I'm your daddy aren't I?  What you
got to say, cat got your tongue?  Yo mama has a wooden leg with a
kickstand on it.
>
> Mark:
> Hope this explains how I use the words.
>
> Andre:
> Yea, like Marsha does. Go and find yourself my friend ....somewhere else.
> Mark does not have quality, Quality has Mark.

Kwaliteit kan niet jou hebben. Niets can Kwaliteit hebben.  Kwaliteit
gaat boven alles. Begrijp je dat?

Vaarwel, makker

Mark
>
>
> 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