[MD] kill all intellectual patterns

[MarshaV]

Ron,

What do people do in your home when you have a temper tantrum?   


Marsha 
 



On Nov 16, 2012, at 6:41 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> Andre is not using ad homenum nor out of tune. You are avoiding  the question just as you criticized DMB
> for doing.
> JUST like HIM. Marsha.!
>  
>  
> JUST like him.
>  
>  
> so shut the heck up hypocrate.
>  
> shut the fk up
>  
> for a change
>  
>  
> ..
>  
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org 
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 4:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] kill all intellectual patterns
> 
> 
> Andre
> 
> You're being nasty again and unforgivably out of tune, so until you learn to sing your own sweet philosophical song I am putting you on junk status.  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 16, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> 
>> Marsha to Andre:
>> You seem not to understand that I am not interested in your moralizing baloney...
>> 
>> "There are so many kinds of problem people like Rigel around, he thought, but the ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals. Full of great ways for others to improve without any expense to themselves. There's an ego thing in there, too. They use the morals to make someone else look inferior and that way look better themselves. It doesn't matter what the moral code is - religious morals, political morals, racist morals, capitalist morals, feminist morals, hippie morals - they're all the same. The moral codes change but the meanness and the egotism stay the same." (RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 7)
>> 
>> Andre:
>> This is not 'egotism' Marsha. It has to do with understanding the very fundamentals/basics of Pirsig's MoQ. The division DQ/sq which you do not accept (just mix them up they're both the same).
>> That the MoQ is an intellectual pattern of value, which you do not accept (the MoQ=Experience/Reality itself).
>> 
>> That you need to write an entire paragraph explaining and understanding the idea of a static pattern to yourself and which Pirsig simply summarizes as static you manage to make it (self)-contradictory static=ever-changing. Rigel represents the social level. I am trying to help you understand this at an intellectual level. However, your repeated and close identification (chapter 14 of LILA)with Lila, at the biological level explains to me the twist you are making...and you do the same with Pirsig's, Dewey's, James', dmbs and Anthony's statements. You see them all as personal, social level attacks on you because you are so far removed from the intellectual level you do not recognize it. You translate intellectual values automatically as social values. It's quite a feat! And this is really sad.
>> 
>> Same way as a few posts back you kidnapped the intellectual level by confusing the mystic's reality with social morality.
>> 
>> Anyway, you are and remain incorrigable. Go away please. This discuss is really too much for you to handle.
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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
> 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