[Platt] Generalities 1. Specifics 0. No value dialogue. [Arlo] Quite valuable. As I said, you ignore ZMM and all parts of LILA apart from the dozen or so quotes you provide. That's plain to everyone. You want page numbers? Just take your dozen quotes, get a list of their pages, then its all the others.
[Platt] The question was, "Do you deny that Pirsig describes DQ as a force? You change the question to "external force." No value dialogue. [Arlo] And I answered. "He uses this metaphor, sure." I also add. "But it holds no water if you take him literally on that. He describes DQ in LILA as "the ongoing Dynamic edge of experience". This synthesizes with the philosophy he develops in ZMM. It synthesizes with his "hot stove" analogy and with the amoeba-acid analogy. When you consider the entirety of his writings, seeing DQ as an "external force" is hugely problematic and can't stand at all. So, no, I don't deny he uses the "force" metaphor. But it holds no water when taken decontextually, as you do. As I describe clearly here. [Platt] Non answer. No value dialogue. [Arlo] You're just being obtuse. DQ has the POTENTIAL to "stop you in your tracks" every moment of every day, because DQ IS "the ongoing dynamic edge of experience"... ALL experience. Not "some". I understand why you can't deal with what I say, and try your Limbaugh tricks. Sad though. [Platt] What questions? No value dialogue. [Arlo] TOO FUNNY. (1) What are the distinctions between "chance" and "DQ"? (2) What responded to DQ before man? (3) What changed in the historically timeline between "no consciousness" and "consciousness"? I can give you more, as there are plenty in the archives. [Platt] Non sequiturs. No value dialogue. [Arlo] Hardly, but nice try. You contrast "chance" with "force for good". Apples and oranges. "Force for good" is not an alternative for "chance". Are you suggesting DQ is "certainty" (as opposed to "chance")? Or that outcomes are "controlled" (as opposed to "chance")? Or that outcomes are predetermined (as opposed to "chance")? Should I just add those now to questions you can't answer? [Platt] Ignores Chapter 11 of Lila. No value dialogue. [Arlo] Takes a larger context of synthesis. So again, I ask, if ONLY MAN can respond to DQ... Was there ever a point in time when NOTHING could respond to DQ? If not, what responded to DQ before "man"? Say during the Jurassic? Give any example from the archeological record of something pre-man that was responding to DQ, that that thing can also no longer do. Obviously, this is just an example of you tossing out a decontextual quote with no means to back it up. Sad. [Platt] Infamous "pee-wee" maneuver comes back to bite ass. You've proved my point: no value dialogue whatsoever. [Arlo] As is clear in both my last post and this one, you simply try to ignore and distract from any questions I ask, or points I make. Typical. Talk about a Pee Wee (nice attempt though). [Platt] Thus, a complete waste of time to respond to any of your posts in the future. [Arlo] Why the future? You don't respond with anything but Limbaugh nonsense in the present... 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/
