Hello everyone On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:22 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ok Dan, I must be really stupid then. It's possible. Could you please >> explain to me, a stupid man, what is truly static in experience? Because >> that was really the only point I have to make and if you think I'm wrong, >> then simply demonstrate to me some "thing" that is truly static and I'll >> shut up. >> >> I agree with you. I've been over this with John before but I don't >> think he ever really got it. At least not so that I can see in reading >> his posts. >> >> This discussion group is centered around the MOQ and therefore we need >> to be precise in using terms consistent with it. Otherwise, we are >> just telling each other stories. Like you said, it is about more than >> typos or spelling errors... we all commit those from time to time; I >> forget to use my spellchecker all the time. Still, by participating >> here, we have an obligation to the MOQ and to be precise with the >> terms used therein. >> >> John: > > I agree completely. So since you relish precision, please use some and tell > me what you mean when you use "static" as a descriptor?
Hi John When it is appropriate. You told me that you've read LILA so you should know the the answer to your question already. If you've forgotten, check out the first few paragraphs of chapter 12. > > dan: > > >> It's only natural to disagree about some things but there are certain >> basic meanings and common denominators within the MOQ to which we need >> to adhere, otherwise confusion arises. Dynamic and static quality are >> certainly two terms that deserve clarity. Mixing and matching them >> does no one any good. >> >> John: > > Acting like they are self-obviously distinct when they are not, does no one > any good either. "The only true constant is change" I asserted. I don't > know if that agrees with your cabalistic moq-terminology, but it's true as > hell. Dan: It is not my cabalistic moq-terminology, thank you anyway. I am not acting like anything. There's been a book written about the two terms and quite a lot of subsequent writings as well. Start there if the terms are not clear to you. What you may not be fully grasping is that a metaphysics, any metaphysics, cannot contain experience and by rights is an exercise in futility. You seem to be assuming that the MOQ is reality. It is not. That is the truth. Thank you, Dan 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
