Hi Dan, On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [Mark previously] >> 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] My intention was certainly not to bring in authority, or state how smart I am. I was asking whether the evolution you are referring to is the same as that presented in the field of biology. If it is, then my understanding of biological evolution does not fit in MoQ. That is my only point. When we speak of evolution in MoQ, we must be using a different paradigm. All my training in biology does, is provide me with some definitions and principles in how evolution is used in that field, nothing else. With that in mind, I was simply asking how do you use the term evolution. I am not sure how I can be any more clear without you getting emotional about this. > > 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. [Mark] If what you are saying is that you cannot explain what is meant by evolutionary levels, then fine. But please do not treat me with disdain because of that. This is an open discussion on MoQ. If we have some common knowledge on the terms (which is what I am asking for) then either present it, or let someone else do it. Your responses are not productive, and remind me of someone quoting the Koran and saying that such is the way it must be. I do not see much quality in that in our Western civilization, although there may be such in the Middle East. So rather than quoting scripture, please provide interpretation. > > 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. [Mark] I am not sure why you responded in the way you did either. If you did not understand my post, then why don't you ask for clarification with some pertinent questions? All I saw was a knee jerk reaction, which has low quality as you know. I pointed to the rest of my post since it did not seem to me that you read it from your response. It you did not comprehend what I was posting, then that is another thing altogether. Please try to stick to the subject rather than try to profess some kind of dogma and alluding to some sacred understanding. Cheers, Mark > > > > 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. [Mark] I would expect a level of caring as well, which would start by caring about those who are interested in MoQ. When what you do is simply point at some book as an explanation, all I can surmise is that you do not understand the book. Why can't you use your own words? We can all read books, it is discussing them which is important in this forum. Perhaps you need to progress to a forum at a higher level in this topic. The rest of us are trying to develop an internet-based MoQ. Your MoQ is something different altogether. > No hard feelings, Mark > 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
