On Apr 1, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > OK Marsha, so ... > > Since sq clearly is other than DQ, we have a problem. > The problem is the word "is".
i do not think the word 'is' is the problem. Seems to me it has more to do with the language. The non-affirming negative was a tough one for me, but now seems the best way to state it. > All current patterns of sq probably started (evolutionary) life in DQ at > source. > And in some sense the static patterns are patterns in otherwise more > or less dynamic patterns, otherwise we wouldn't recognise them as > static patterns. Sq dose not exist as other than DQ. Trying to rectify our paradoxical language is not pointing in the correct direction. imho > Most of the undergrowth and leaf-mould in your forest of trees may > eventually end up in trees, but at any moment in time as a forrester > it's worth knowing your trees from your undergrowth. So. It's all analogy. > I might say DQ is the source of all sq perhaps ? (about becoming > rather than being, unsurprisingly, given the words dynamic and > static). But for me this semantic debate is really a pragmatic > question, of what you want to would do with your statement ? Apart > from annoy people who don't see the world the way you do ;-) I do not recognize sq as 'being.' I disagree that it is a semantic debate on my part. It represents how I understand/ experience the world. It is how the MoQ has evolve for me. - And the annoyance of other people is their pattern. I get annoyed with cowardly nons de plume. Life is sometimes tough that way. > Like, assuming it is any value to talk about DQ and sq, the primary > division in MoQ, it is valuable to distinguish between them (as Pirsig > did). How could we do otherwise, and where's the value ? I agree with you that there is value. It has been valuable to my understanding. But to be told that I CANNOT state 'sq is not other than DQ' is retarding experience. Marsha > > Ian > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:01 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Re: sq is not other than DQ >> >> >> I'm no genius, but I understand this statement as a non-affirming negative. >> It is inclusive. >> >> The statement 'a forest is trees' allows for one to say: Yes, and it is >> undergrowth, animals and insects too. Where if you state that 'a forest is >> not other than trees' there is no allowance in the statement to point to >> other additional possibilities. >> >> >> So my statement is: sq is not other than DQ. - The fundamental nature of >> sq is DQ. >> >> >> The statement precisely represents my understanding. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 ___ 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
