> [Ron previously]
> > Sorry for getting worked up, SA.
> > It is a peev of mine
> > When I get the feeling someone
> > Is deliberately messing with me.
> [Sa previously]
> I wasn't deliberately messing with you. I just
> don't understand how absolute changes the meaning of
> zero, nothing, and dynamic quality. If it doesn't
> change their meaning, then it's not necessary.
> That's why I said you could replace absolute, in
this
> context, with eggs, and zero, nothing, and dynamic
> quality would stay the same. If you think it helps
> you, then use absolute. I am dug into my position.
> [Ron]
> Dynamic quality being absolutely indefinable has
> meaning, In it is about the most certain thing one
can say
> about Anything.
I agree, but isn't dynamic quality as certain as
one can be in this context. Dq is nothing or
indefinable. There is no wiggle room on this. You
could add absolutely indefinable, but I don't think it
is adding any more weight than already exists.
Believe me, I follow your logic, and it does make
complete sense. What your doing is enhancing a
quality about dq to emphasize 'something' about dq
that dq is, but I think absolute is inherent in dq
already. The only tricky part seems to be that
absolute might connotate dq is everywhere. Dq is in
static patterns, but static patterns hold their own
integrity that I find it necessary to allow dq and sq
to remain in use. If dq is absolute, then why the
need for defining sq? That's where I'm coming from.
[Ron previously]
> > And yes SA, in everyday life when somebody messes
> > with me I tell them
> > what I think...
> [SA]
> When?
> [Ron Snip's]
> " I once asked you, Ham, if you just say
> off-the-way unthoughtful
> > 'things' because your just trying to stir
> controversy, and you denied
> > this as an emotional response and not accurate.
> So, who's really
> > being not accurate here? I see Ron starting to do
> the same thing.
> [Ron goes on]
> You see me starting to stir controversy and say
> off-the-wall
> unthoughtful things, implying you are being
> emotional and not accurate.
Well, the latter is what Ham would say about me
when I pointed out his circular logic, where one topic
seemed to be settled, and we would go onto other
topics, but then Ham would, for some reason, go back
to old topics again. I see now, since Ham admitted
this, that he is trying to stir controversy for
thought stimulation.
I was wondering why we (Ron and I) where going
back to a seemingly old topic of S/O divide called
classic/romantic split. I thought this was settled.
I do admit I could have worded this discussion with
you better. Sorry.
[Ron]
> Nope, no sarcasm there.
When I was saying laughing twirling, I will not
shut the valve off, this is fun indeed! The laughing
twirling was me releasing some tension I saw coming
from myself (so I do see how this comes off with
disturbance). The shut the valve off stuff was I will
not stop you from thinking what you want to think, nor
Ham for that matter - I can't. The last fun indeed,
was me feeling relieved and having a sense of I let it
go. I felt harmony again.
> [Ron]
> I did not see the word "seems' in your statement.
Your correct. But I was wondering..., but I
guess I didn't type that part.
[Ron]
> You did say I might be having honest inquiries
> But your ending remarks imply that you doubt it.
> " Life is such a twirl. So
> > fun indeed!
No, I didn't doubt it. I was stuck in a state of
wonder. I didn't really know how to latch onto what
was happening. I wasn't changing or going with the
flow very well.
> [Ron]
> Does not the MOQ embrace the concept Of radical
> empiricism?
I guess with some topics or concepts I don't see
any differences. I'm not keen on what radical
empiricism is, but it does seem to suggest first-hand
experience, thus, dq. Is that correct?
[Ron]
> That all experience and concepts are viable to some
> degree?
> If Ham does not agree with MOQ that's Ham, but we as
> MOqer's
> Must evaluate on the merit of "does it add anything
> to our
> understanding?"
> And not dismiss it based on our dislikes.
I really find it difficult to see any value in
Ham's thesis that I would find it beneficial in my
daily and nightly practice in living. Maybe you see
something I don't.
cool day,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for
today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
