J-A, Seems to me the romantics often concentrate on personality rather than concepts. You, Andre and dmb seem fascinated with your conclusions about Marsha, though you know nothing about her. You read some posts and think that is her. How stuck are you? (Who has the romantic interest?) There is much to her that is other-than-her-posts.
Why don't facets of the MoQ catch your interest? Marsha On Jul 20, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote: > Hi Andre > > Marsha is right in her opinion that a tool of steel like a monkey wrench is > by time a ever-changing set of molecules. > > But as long as the nut is also still having its set of molecules and its > pattern are static and stable enough, then a skilled mechanic can use the > wrench to tight the nut. The idea of static patterns and static quality are > then useful and constructive that connects it with dynamic quality. > > As long as it is Possible to Have a view like Marsha have, she got the free > right and free will to have this view. But if you think that a monkey wrench > is of soft material or you just never can't adjust it to fit the bolt > perfectly, then you'll never be a good mechanic. I remember the different > perspectives in ZAMM where Pirsig was pursuing his classic view on things and > John and Sylvia kept a more romantic standpoint. I see Marsha as the romantic > type of person and that is why this discussion catch my interest. > > Is there a way, is it possible to make classic and romantic oriented people > to understand each other? There was a question why didn't the MOQ catch more > interest in the world? Was it only people of the classic side that liked it? > What is the proportions in the world population between classic and romantic > people? I can count up to around 20 here in MD. Is it 20/9 000 000 000? Where > do we put Bodvar? > > Jan-Anders > > > 19 jul 2011 kl. 20.33 Andre wrote: > >> Andre to Dave: >> Just another insert Dave. When I talked about "Leave it in the weather >> for a number of years and yeah, the changes are noticeable because >> dynamic influences occur at subatomic levels all the time. But for >> pragmatic reasons the notion of using 'ever changing' when you mean >> 'stable' or 'static' is confusing because misleading"... I should also >> have added the 'forces' of regeneration, the stabilizing quality to >> latch the advances made. It are these repeated patterns that make them >> stable, recognizable. >> >> To add to the confusion Marsha has gotten herself into is that she now >> denies DQ as being change. She says: "I consider DQ to be indeterminate >> - unknowable, undefinable, and undividable - unpatterned". >> >> Now, on its own this is a bit more like it. BUT she still considers >> DQ=sq and sq=DQ. She has said so repeatedly. She considers herself to be >> an ever changing pattern of...within a stable whatever. You work it out >> Dave because I can't anymore. >> >> I agree with dmb: "sigh". > > 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
