Hi Dan, Thanks. My apologies, I will take a few deep breaths before I respond in the future. I will certainly do my best to get current. As something of a newcomer, I will ask questions.
My questions to you in the post concerning your dismissal of Marsha, which you responded to, were sincere. Perhaps when you have a chance you could respond to them. In order for me to understand MOQ I believe an understanding of the terms is necessary, some thought that goes into the source of concepts such as SOM. Things arise for a reason. In my recent response to A from Sweden, I proposed something concerning words. Any response to that would be most welcome as well. Cheers and over and out, Mark On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Dan Glover <daneglo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:54 AM, 118 <ununocti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover <daneglo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hello everyone > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 <ununocti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi Dan, > >> > > >> > Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle > that > >> I > >> > have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by > >> definition. > >> > When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to > be > >> a > >> > lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually > >> using > >> > SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from > the > >> > other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there > is > >> no > >> > separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to > translate > >> such > >> > an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that > are > >> > not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, > in > >> > metaphysical terms of its arising would be most useful. It appears > that > >> > Marsha is attempting to define such boundaries. Could you please > define > >> > yours, and stop being so silly about it? I would like to see you > defend > >> > your rationale without resorting to some nonsensical not this not > that. > >> > >> Dan: > >> > >> Mark, you obviously have A LOT of catching up to do before we can hold > >> a reasonable discussion. Subject/object metaphysics holds that there > >> are only a subject observing objects. Period. Reading your posts, I > >> don't see that you've grasped that. When you ask: When is it that > >> something enters the SOM realm... something doesn't enter the SOM > >> realm. There isn't "something" out there called SOM. That is the > >> fallacy that Robert Pirsig tried to correct with his Metaphysics of > >> Quality. > >> > >> And for the record, I am not being silly. It is your lack of > >> understanding that makes it seem so. Next thing you'll be calling me a > >> retard, I suppose. Not this, not that has nothing to do with the > >> definition of the intellectual level. Honestly, I am not teacher, > >> Mark. I have very little patience with people who bounce in on their > >> high horse spouting how smart they are. A good scientist would do the > >> research... read the archives for starters... read Anthony McWatt's > >> work... read LILA and ZMM... and if you claim to have read them, read > >> them again. You haven't got the message. > >> > >> Dan > >> > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Mark > >> > > >> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Dan Glover <daneglo...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hello everyone > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan < > dmbucha...@hotmail.com > >> > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still > don't > >> see > >> >> the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to > >> miss, > >> >> even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it > merely > >> >> insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have > >> >> responded with a childish evasion. > >> >> > > >> >> > Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a > particular > >> >> kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of > philosophy, > >> >> then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as "a formalized > >> >> subject/object level (SOM)"? > >> >> > > >> >> > How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's > like > >> >> defining "food" as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the > >> first > >> >> place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just > the > >> >> ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations > and > >> the > >> >> like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's > not > >> to > >> >> understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use > to > >> >> read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just > thinking. > >> >> Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. > >> >> > > >> >> > That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, > I > >> >> characterized your reasoning as "spectacularly bad" and > "spectacularly > >> >> stupid" but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise > >> >> explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child > could > >> >> have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual > >> >> substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. > >> Insult > >> >> and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, > is > >> >> there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence > >> mean > >> >> absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you > can > >> >> cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without > >> >> embarrassment. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. > >> >> > > >> >> > Therefore: > >> >> > > >> >> > Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part > of > >> d > >> >> in recent historic times? > >> >> > > >> >> > C'mon. Anyone can see how s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, > right? > >> >> It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem > with > >> it > >> >> is very clear, no? > >> >> > >> >> Dan comments: > >> >> > >> >> Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to define > >> >> the intellectual level as something it is obviously not, at least not > >> >> in the framework of the MOQ. SOM as intellect (and I don't care how > it > >> >> is clothed, it is still SOM as intellect) is an unreasonable position > >> >> that leads to nonsensical conclusions that any serious thinker is > >> >> bound to reject. It is frustrating to spend so much time on this, > >> >> especially when Marsha claims to be interested in Buddhist philopophy > >> >> and how it relates to the MOQ. Why on earth would I even bother > >> >> getting drawn into another discussion with her when I already know > >> >> what the end result will be? > >> >> > >> >> I've tried to engage both her and John in an intelligent discussion > >> >> but failed. Maybe it's me. Unlike others here, I am not going to > >> >> trumpet how smart I am. Yet I have really tried, only to be met with > >> >> silliness, insults, and the same old stale cup of tea that has been > >> >> swishing around here for years. Now we've got an umemployed > >> >> "scientist" clogging up the airwaves with more foolishness. Oh boy. > >> >> Isn't it fun. Please find work soon. > >> >> > >> >> So, no, it is not just you, David. Just so you know, > >> >> > >> >> Dan > >> > > > > [Mark] > > Hi Dan, > > > > Is that all you've got? Hmmm...Intellectual indeed. Is that what you > call > > answers? > > > > Well, then, my only response is: Go back to your master, you effing > > rottweiler! You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food > > waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy. > Stop > > your pathetic snarling on these airwaves! Don't come back until you have > > something productive to bark about! Go now, shoo,shoo. That's a good > boy. > > Hi Mark > > I have re-read my post to you... it is not insulting in the least, > other than to point out your questions are meaningless once a person > has come to terms with the MOQ. I have no wish that you'd leave. I > welcome new members. I merely suggest you would do well to learn a bit > before jumping into discusssions that have been going on for years. > > Also, there are forum guidelines, one of which is a limit to 4 posts a > day per member. Horse has been very generous in overlooking that rule, > especially when someone has something of substance to add to the > discussion. > > You don't. > > If that's insulting to you, then so be it. That is what I mean when I > say you are clogging things up. There are others here who'd be more > than happy to swap nonsense with you... Platt, Ham, Marsha, Bodvar, > etc. But if you are sincere in learning a little something about the > MOQ, I'd suggest going into the archives and reading posts from people > like dmb, Horse, Andre, Paul Turner, Anthony McWatt, Keith Gillette, > Scott Roberts, and a dozen others I could mention. The quality of > their writings jumps out. > > Dan > > PS I have recently been delving into the Guidebook to ZMM... very > insightful. You might want to add that to your reading list. > 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 > 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
