[MD] expanded rationality

[Andre Broersen]

Marsha to greetings:

Once one accepts the MoQ's fundamental truth that the world is nothing but Value, then 'expanded rationality' occurs when an individual transforms the natural tendency to reify self and world...

Andre:
Speak for yourself. (Which is what you do anyway)

Marsha:
...into the natural tendency to hold all static patterns of value to be hypotheses.

Andre:
To go with the patterns that are useful within their appropriate contexts and allow the apprehension of DQ as a guide to face the challenge of a new context.

Nothing bloody 'hypotheses'! Are you living in theory nowadays? Oops, yes of course you do. You jump on the bandwagon of every new writer you come across who presents you with challenges to your theories about how to live life.

Get real Marsha. Get a life. Start living and you find out the mess you make when you confuse DQ with sq. That is what dmb means when he says you are 'conflating' DQ and sq and it has nothing to do with your 'fundamental nature of static quality' being DQ.

Let me put it bluntly and honestly Marsha: WE ALL KNOW THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF SQ IS DQ. WE KNOW THAT!!!!!!!!! Are you happy now? Won a battle have we? THIS understanding,my dear, IS OLD HAT, it is almost boring to be reminded of it.

But, for goodness sake, it is important to distinguish the two. Do you understand why there is a ZMM and why there is a LILA? I am beginning to doubt it very much. Just because there needs to be a balance between the two does not mean that you conflate, substitute, mix, confuse the one with the other.

And that is exactly what you keep on doing. Nothing 'impasse'. You, Marsha lack a basic understanding of Pirsig's reasoning as to why, in building, in formulating his metaphysics, he took so much care  and agonised over the first division. And it had to be DQ/sq.

And you come along and say, DQ is none other than sq! What a wacky arsehole statement is that?!