Hello everyone On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:07 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello everyone >> >> I don't care if you're a trained biologist or not (I am seriously >> leaning towards the latter). You obviously don't know much about the >> MOQ when you make statements like this: > > [Mark] > No, Dan, I am not asking you to care, this is simply a discussion of > MoQ and the terms used therein.
Hi Mark No. You're appealing to authority by telling me you are a trained biologist. Please don't tell me how smart you are. Show me. How does your being a trained biologist qualify as a discussion of the MOQ and the terms used therein? > >> >>>Mark previously: >>> I just seems to me that we are using the word Evolution as a catch >>> phrase for something that it is not. It may seem like it relates to >>> the sciences, but it most certainly does not. The term provides >>> practical awareness in biology, but I do not see it in MoQ. >> >> Dan: >> >> How can you say this? It makes no sense whatsoever. The four levels >> share an evolutionary history as described by Robert Pirsig in LILA. >> We are not using evolution as a catch phrase and if you think so I >> suggest a refresher course in whatever school of biology you did your >> training. > > [Mark] > Dan, if I may be so bold, you say absolutely nothing in your response. > The topic of this thread was evolution. My question was what do You > mean by evolution. I am asking you for your opinion. What do you > mean by "share an evolutionary history"? You can choose not to > respond, but if you do, answer the question and don't just become > emotional. Perhaps it is beneath you, so humor me. If you had read > the rest of my post besides just that which you responded to, then > maybe you would have understood my position. Taking a just a part to > respond to is immoral, imho. Dan: Mark, if you have indeed read LILA then there would be no reason for me to explain what I mean by static patterns sharing an evolutionary history. They are evolutionary levels. This is all laid out carefully by Robert Pirsig. I am not a teacher nor do I have any wish to become one. If we do not have some common knowledge regarding the terms of the MOQ, then any possibility of an intelligent conversation is lost. For the record, I did read your complete post. It made very little sense, even the parts I replied to... hence my frustration. And Mark, we are free to respond to parts or all of any one's posts. To say that I must respond to your whole post or else I am being immoral is ludicrous. Honestly, I don't know why I even bothered responding at all. >> >> Arrrgggh!! This is so frustrating! > > [Mark] > Sorry, I find MoQ interesting, especially when we can discuss it. If > you are done, then I can see your frustration. It's like completing > an equation in math that people don't understand, and you must try to > explain it. Dan: I expect (which is probably wrong on my part) a certain level of caring when it comes to discussing the MOQ. I expect the person I am discussing with to have taken the time to have read the books and perhaps some of the follow-up work written since LILA. Without that, my trying to explain the MOQ is indeed like trying to explain a math equation a person doesn't understand. I'd have to stat at the very beginning. Why not just read the book instead? Or re-read it. Whatever. 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
