> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:25:00 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] DMB and Me > > and what
"And" your point--remember when I said the difference between "riposte" and "addition/augmentation"? Was that just a reminder to yourself, or were you continuing the conversation? If you were continuing, knowing why you wrote it helps. The ".." for instance--how are we to interpret that visual disturbance in the email message? It's clear you often don't edit for grammar and typos, so was it just a stuttered period, or two-thirds of an ellipsis, in which case we have all sorts of meaning being generated. Oh, and I saw the other thing about Dave and I kissing and making up, but why do other people care so much? I honestly don't think we've ever had a good conversation for more than three revolutions (him, me, him). Maybe five. I just don't find our conversations that interesting, and imploring me to be "plain spoken" doesn't really get at the problem, which is _my_ interest level--if there's nothing in it for me to talk to Dave, why should I? Because Dave has something to teach me? But--and this is very much my own opinion that stretches no further--I don't think Dave is a very good teacher, at least not for this particular student. Should I continue because people enjoy the spectacle? But that's not true--some people think issues occasionally get discussed, and like that, maybe. So I have this suggestion: if people enjoy the issues that get discussed intermittently between Dave and I, then I suggest trying to talk to Dave or I about them. That's an exclusive "or," not one of those wimpy inclusive ones. Because as long as Dave talks to me the way he does (and I see he does it to pretty much everyone, it's just his natural way, I guess, and I continually wonder why anyone else talks to him either), I have no interest in trying to communicate, because it takes just way too long and too many brain cells to wade through the bullshit for me. I know Dave has no idea what it is he does, but c'est la vie should be both of our reactions. I have no idea what _I_ do that pisses him off so--c'est la vie. But here's a tip for people with "take me as I am" personas: when you use language that can excite the emotions, expect emotions to get excited. If you believe that emotions have no place in the purview of what your topic is, then if you are purposefully exciting them, you are throwing an obstacle in your own path. And if you also admonish people for becoming emotionally excited while using emotional language, then you are performing a kind of linguistic torture. Reading the sentence becomes not "what's it's meaning," but "first tame your inflamed passions, then look for meaning." I don't like being made to dance the two-step all the goddamn time. Matt > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Matt Kundert <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 5:04:18 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] DMB and Me > > > and? > > > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:56:35 -0700 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [MD] DMB and Me > > > > "the process of defining dynamic quality" implies that DQ is primary.. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Steven Peterson <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 2:16:36 PM > > Subject: Re: [MD] DMB and Me > > > > Hi Matt, > > > > > Steve said: > > > [Quality] is undefined because it is inexhaustably > > > describable. > > > > > > Matt: > > > This is awesome because it never occurred to me to gloss > > > Quality's undefinition this way. I've been glossing it as > > > anti-essence for years, but this takes a big leap forward > > > (at least in terms of integrating Pirsig and Rorty, which I > > > don't require everyone to care about). Way to go, Steve. > > > > I got it from this LC annotation: > > > > RMP: > > Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can > > be described is a > > process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge > > they are static > > patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say > > correctly that Dynamic > > Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because > > definition never exhausts it. _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3 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
