Marsha had snarked:
I suppose your 'A Football' post was you using your _best _ tools and working method and understanding. Additionally, maybe you think censoring certain topics helps "to do the work"?
I suppose lumping the subject matter together is your way of leaving a witty response aimed at
some sort of hypocracy, sigh, sadly you miss the point.
The football post was aimed at your penchant for flaming, which has nothing to do with the
inability to discern what is better and more true in the way of opinion.
It has left me very hopeful about the MD discuss to see that no one responded to your attempts
at stiring up trouble for your own amusement.
Fereting out false problems IS INDEED using ones best tools to "to do the work" of avoiding
such fruitless arguementation.
> Now what would be some of the ways RMP might possibly respond? He might state that Dan is correct because the statement he presented better represents the foundation of the MoQ. Or he might state that Marsha is better because the quote she presented more correctly represents the MoQ. Or he might state that both quotes are good, but the foundation of the MoQ is the idea that the world is nothing but value. Or he might state that in presenting such quotes we only prove we're both clueless. Or he might state it's as William James says... Or he might suggest we consult Anthony. Or he might state Joe has had it right all along. Or he might state it's for everyone to work it out as BEST they can. Etc., &etc., &etc...........
> No one is suggesting it is anything goes, but neither is there any verification it is just as YOU think it to be.
> Some ideas and opinions are better than others. Some are truer and more accurate to RMP's work than others.
> Some are better able to explain their own understanding but when it comes to verification continuity in meaning is what is
> looked for. Any quote can be taken out of contextual continuity and rendered un verifiable rhetorically but when we look
> at what Pirsig aims at, those quotes should be consistant with that aim which should help our understanding as to just
> what understanding is truest to his own.
> If we use the tools handed to us we can dispense with authoritative interpretations. All you have to do is the work.
> Then all we have to do is look at the practical consequences of holding one idea or another as "truer" or "better"
> than another.