[MD] moq self

[MarshaV]

Bugger off Mark!  




On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:27 PM, 118 wrote:

> 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


 
___