[MD] moq self

[118]

Hi Marsha,

OK, I misunderstood what you meant by "nice", thanks for clarifying.  I
guess what you meant was "I have read this".  I was not suggesting that you
accepted or rejected, I was simply saying that you seem to have presented
an opinion.  You have now claeared this up for me and I will understand
your posts with this in mind.



If you were to ask Pirisg if he stands by each paragraph as presented in
this book, my guess would be that he would look at you incredulously.  You
have taken a book recommendation from Pirsig to mean that everything in the
book is according to the way Pirsig thinks.  I think this is dishonest and
somewhat demeaning of Pirsig, yet you continue to do it.

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 10:22 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:



> Mark:  You had said to Jan-Anders "nice".  That has meaning more than
> acknowledgement.

Marsha:  My response was, I hoped, a polite way of acknowledging Jan-Anders
comment without either accepting or rejecting their interpretation.

More on the Tao (Zhuangzi):

"The men of old, their knowledge had arrived at something: at what had it
arrived?
There were some who thought there had not yet begun to be things -- the
utmost, the exhaustive, there is no more to add. The next thought there
were things but there had not yet begun to be borders. The next thought
there were borders to them but there had not yet begun to be "That's it,
that's not". The lighting up of "That's it, that's not" is the reason why
the Way is flawed. (ch. 2, pp. 54)"



Mark:  Yes, what you present is the same argument that David is making
about MOQ being degenerate (or flawed as you say).  I think this is a false
argument.  In the quote is speaks of "lighting up" which we can translate
into SQ.  It is not “the Way” which is flawed, it is mistaking examples
which "light up", as entities in themselves that is flawed.  In other
words, the reader is flawed, not the presenter.



Again, I will try to explain what I have been trying to explain to David
(still unsuccessfully).  SQ are sign posts along a journey.  When we see a
sign post during a car trip, we do not think that such a sign post is a
destination, or describes the journey.  We use such sign posts to carry
on.  If the sign says "turn right", we do not continue to turn right until
another sign tells us to stop turning right.  If Pirsig presents something,
we do not keep circling around it like buzzards.



This adherence to sign posts is what many are doing with MOQ.  I am
continually told that "It is Written", followed by a passage from Pirsig.
These examples simply demonstate that some stop at the sign post and then
assume that the journey is over.  The journey is not the sign posts.  To
think they are, is a flaw of the reader (or interpreter) of what Pirsig
presents.  Pirsig warns about this by stating that MOQ is degenerate.  What
he means is that MOQ is not Quality, nothing more.  He does not mean that
MOQ leads to a life in the gutter.  He does not mean that MOQ cannot lead
to Quality.  SQ are posts we set up during a journey to let other people
travel such a journey.  The journey no the sign posts.  MOQ is not Quality.



With all due respect to what you present by Zhuangzi, it is completely out
of context.  Just because "flawed" and "the Way" exist in the same sentence
does not mean we should take what this writer says as dictum.  I did not
read the rest since I assume you put down what you thought was important.



Sorry, I disagree with what you are attempting to present by this quote.



No need to try to explain and try to be "right", or claim that you did not
agree or disagree with the quote.  If you present it, you agree with it.
Such weasely posturing belies motives outside of discussing MOQ.  We are
not lawyers trying to win a case, or bring value to our own opinions.  We
try to bring value to others with our opinions.  I really don't care how
SURE you are of your hypothesis.  What I want is support for you
hypothesis.  If you prefer to live in uncertainty (the hypothetical), how
certain are you that this is right for you?  If you are uncertain that
uncertainty is best, then this leaves the door open for the
non-hypothetical.  If you are certain, then this is your truth.  It is
where you start from to take your journey.  What do you see along the way
of this journey?  Put up some sign posts for the rest of us.  Report back
to us from where you are.  Philosophy is like creating a log book.

Regards,

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