Nom de plume
2011/4/1 MarshaV <[email protected]> > > 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 > -- parser 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
