dmb to Matt, Steve, Andre and all interested moqers: Andre seems to understand and I appreciate the help. Hopefully, this post will clear up some misunderstandings. Steve has made a series of clear and succinct remarks that lend themselves to this task.
Andre: Once again thank you for your encouragement Dave, however I must plead ignorance of the intricacy issues discussed in this thread and the content of the dialogues between you, Steve and Matt. Given this admission I ask for understanding and pull Phaedrus' quest in defence. He admitted he was a poor scholar. He was after something and his focus perusing philosophical ideas generated by 'the Greats' amounted to one thing only, and that was finding confirmation of his Quality idea as fundamental to everything we know. One of his arguments in defence was that, to read and understand every philosophical idea generated one must live to at least 500 years and the problem also being that their arguments can be quite convincing. In other words: you can easily get sucked in. My exposure to philosophical ideas lasted 1 Semester, and the dialogues usually to place in the local pub, and not the classroom. To be a bit unkind (perhaps) I do not carry the philosophical garbage the dialogues convey. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. I am after quality statements. I am after furthering my understanding of the MoQ. I am after furthering my understanding of DQ/SQ of which we are.The cycle you're working on is yourself. I find Nagarjuna, difficult at first, very revealing. Once the penny has dropped ll is clearer. Similar to the Quality idea. The wonderful role and power of language is a static tool.It cannot help us get a 'grip' on DQ. We cannot 'nail it down'. As I said to Bodvar, it is a static PoV attempted to be used to describe something dynamic. This is not only impossible, it is also immoral within the MoQ.The closer you think you come to describe it,the further you move away from it. The problem with a SOM rationality/attitude is that it doesn't like 'things undefined'. It feels uncomfortable with the, so called, 'unknown'. A bit like the fear of the bishop having a saint in the parish! SOM needs to name and define so it can, by implication, control. You have tried, again and again, to make this distinction clear in your posts from within the radical empiricist experience. Once again Phaedrus talks about the difficulties involved in religious conversions. If they do not see the quality in this, your efforts will be futile. If they do..you may have a chance. You are a very patient person and I thank you for not chucking it in. I really appreciate your posts and thoughts and arguments. I am clear on the two perspectives. It makes the MoQ, ZMM,LILA and the annotations much more understandable. Confuse the two and you get nothing but problems, misinterpretations, contradictions and frustrations. For what it is worth. Andre 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
