Hi Dan, On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Ian, >> Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I appreciate you intention with >> the latter part of your post. As you well know, my response to Dan >> was that I was unaffected by his personal attack on what I posted, and >> wished to return to the topic. I care enough about MoQ to refrain >> from such rhetoric (most of the time). > [Dan]> > What personal attack? You are the one who basically called us all > idiots by stating (from a trained biologist's perspective) that we're > glibly using the term "evolution" in meaningless ways. > > I may not care much for your posts but I do care a great deal about > the MOQ. I don't like to see it trashed by someone who does not seem > to know the basic terminology involved. If you took my words as a > personal attack, you are mistaken.
[Mark] I apologize if you feel that my posts appear naive to you, and perhaps destructive. I am not sure I can do anything to help you along these lines. I presented some reasons why I am interested in discussing the use of "evolution", and why its biological sense may not be appropriate for MoQ. I do not believe I have received any intelligent response to these from you. You have an interpretation of Lila, that may not be mine. I am not sure what tired answers you are referring to, but I can certainly address these if you present them to me. My intention is to broaden the understanding of MoQ, which is certainly possible with communication made available by the Internet. This is a room for discussion and creating understanding. It is not a classroom where dogma is taught. If you have something intelligent to say about evolution, then please present it. That is the purpose of this thread as I understand it. Dan, my question to you is: What do you mean by evolutionary history? Biological evolutionary forces point to the self assembly of organisms, and their ability to mutate. The other side of the equation is the culling process which allows some to persist and others not. If this is applied in an MoQ perspective, this would indicate that the levels self-assemble through some kind of primary force, and then Quality does the selection. Is this what you mean? You bring in social and intellectual evolutionary forces which have shaping intention, of what I am not quite sure. Are these forces the same as the biological ones? Is the selection process again one of Quality which then allows some to persist? If this is the case, then you create a dichotomy between Quality, and static quality, which I do not think is appropriate. If instead the dichotomy is between dynamic quality and static quality as two independently operating entities, I also do not think this fits with MoQ. Any elucidation of this on your part is more than welcome, if you wish. > > Dan: > Again, this is silly. If you don't know the answers to your questions, > you NEED TO READ THE BOOK. Period. I haven't the time to write page > after page explaining the MOQ when it has already been more than > adequately explained by Robert Pirsig in LILA. > [Mark] Then why are we discussing things, if everything is already written? Your use of the term evolution seems a bit destructive of MoQ in its implications for reasons I have already presented. If you care not to provide reasons why you do this, then that is fine. Why do you participate if everything is already explained for you? Are you on some kind of mission of conversion? > Dan: > > Right. We are idiots and you are so intelligent and above it all. > Please. Get with the program, dude. READ THE BOOK! > [Mark] I am not pointing to your intelligence, I am providing my interpretation of your actions. There is a strategy to vilify and condemn those who do not subscribe to your program. This is not uncommon and is used in politics all the time. Perhaps we can rise above that, and discuss the issues which are important to MoQ. I fully understand if you do not want to address my concerns, but your emotional attitude lacks quality. It reminds me of friends who insist I read the bible yet again. This is a philosophy forum, not to be used to push one's own belief onto someone else by sheer will. I do not believe you are marching lock-step with Pirsig, and are perhaps adulterating his prose. As such, you are no spokesperson for MoQ. But you probably already know that. In my humble opinion, 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
