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 <[email protected]> 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
