Antonio, all, I agree. There has been a lot of thoughtless bickering.
-Tuukka 26.3.2012 18:13, Antonio Roberto Maestrello wrote:
Hi. I really don´t understand why some people get so aggressive. If you are participating to get enlightened, no one should disparage anyone's opinion, even if it doenst' seem to be pertinent to the discussion theme. In addition personal insults put you down, Be in peace Antonio Roberto 2012/3/25 Tuukka Virtaperko<[email protected]>Everyone, I asked DMB, who on this mailing list does he like or consider a good conversationalist. He didn't answer. I'm curious... so now I'll ask everyone, who likes DMB or considers him a good conversationalist? Also, I have never meant to be a burden. Is DMB right that I'm wasting everyone's time? Should I consider ceasing to post in this forum? What do you think? -Tuukka 25.3.2012 23:34, david buchanan wrote:If you don't want to play along, that's fine. But now you've posted more than anyone else in this thread and yet you are not playing. You are interfering with the game, changing the subject to the wonderfulness of you and otherwise wasting everybody's time. If you don't care to play, then don't post on this thread. Or in this forum. It's like the drivel masters are hell bent on making sure that quality conversations can never happen. Every decent conversation is murdered in its crib. Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:21:47 +0300From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Dewey's Zen DMB, see, I've been playing this same game for a couple of years already - reading more mainstream philosophy (I agree that "Dewey's Zen" is not a pure example of "mainstream"), finding concepts that are intended to be something the MOQ expresses better, and replacing them - writing pages and pages of notes for myself. So no, I don't play games with that, because it's already something I do systematically. If I want to do that to "Dewey's Zen", I'm more likely to borrow the entire book and read at least fifty pages. I don't mean to put you down by not playing your game. I do understand your game, and playing games is how this more serious approach got started. -Tuukka 25.3.2012 23:13, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:Look, DMB, I don't have time for this bullshit. You posted an useful article, I wanted to thank you for that. I guess I just couldn't believe you actually do think it's good to reject positive things other people give, such as respect. I'm not interested in playing your game, because it is not relevant practice for my work. I was interested in the article you posted. You were useful for me, but in a way which you did not intend, and now you seem to say this implies that I'm stupid. Talk about drivel. -Tuukka 25.3.2012 21:55, david buchanan wrote:dmb says: Thanks for playing along, Dan. I'm going to withhold comment and hope others take a shot at it to too. (Since Tuukka doesn't seem to understand the core concept of this game, you're the only one to participate so far.) ------------------------------**------------------------------**------On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:37 PM, david buchanan<dmbuchanan@hotmail.**com<[email protected]>> wrote:This might be fun but it's also a kind of experiment. I was reading a paper and saw many parallels to Pirsig, which wasn't very surprising because it's titled "Dewey's Zen". But I wonder if others read it the same way I do. In certain passages it seems like one could plug Pirsig's terms into the sentences and they'd still mean the same thing - almost exactly. Telling you more than that - like which terms I had in mind - it would ruin the experiment. How about if I just post a bit of it and let everyone take a shot at it? Maybe it would be fun to put in Pirsig's terms wherever you think they would fit. Take your pick or play with them all, but please be explicit enough to let me know if you're seeing the same thing that I'm seeing.Hi David Been editing one of my books most of the evening... I love the writing... the editing, not so much... but since I cannot afford to pay someone to do it, it falls to me. Anyway, I thought I'd throw out a few ideas to chew on... ...experiences come whole, pervaded by unifying qualities thatdemarcate them within the flux of our lives. If we want to find meaning, or the basis for meaning, we must therefore start with the qualitative unity that Dewey describes. The demarcating pervasive quality is, at first, unanalyzed, but it is the basis for subsequent analysis, thought, and development. Thought starts from this experienced whole, and only then does it introduce distinctions that carry it forward as inquiry.Dan: The author seems to be saying the same thing that RMP says when he talks about Quality coming first, and how ideas arise from 'it'. The qualifiers the author uses seem contradictory on the surface though it is possible I'm not seeing things properly. It is not wrong to say that we experience objects,properties, and relations, but it is wrong to say that these are primary in experience. What are primary are pervasive qualities of situations, within which we subsequently discriminate objects, properties, and relations.Dan: See... the author subtly shifts here into saying these qualities are pervasive and the demarcation only happens later. Dewey took great pains to remind us that the primary locus ofhuman experience is not atomistic sense impressions, but rather what he called a "situation," by which he meant, not just our physical setting, but the whole complex of physical, biological, social, and cultural conditions that constitute any given experience—experience taken in its fullest, deepest, richest, broadest sense.Dan: A minor quibble here... in the MOQ, experience is synonymous with Dynamic Quality. Static quality comes later... inorganic, biological, social, intellectual. Mind, on this view, is neither a willful creator of experience, noris it a mere window to objective mind-independent reality. Mind is a functional aspect of experience that emerges when it becomes possible for us to share meanings, to inquire into the meaning of a situation, and to initiate action that transforms, or remakes, that situation.Dan: To respond to Dynamic Quality, in other words... The pervasive quality of a situation is not limited merely tosensible perception or motor interactions. Thinking is action, and so "acts of thought" also constitute situations that must have pervasive qualities. Even our best scientific thinking stems from the grasp of qualities.Dan: "Acts of thought" are ideas? Is that what I'm understanding here? And yes, the MOQ would seem to agree that ideas are as 'real' as inorganic and biological patterns... they exist on different evolutionary levels, however. And perhaps my favorite....The crux of Dewey's entire argument is that what we call thinking, or reasoning, or logical inference could not even exist without the felt qualities of situations: "The underlying unity of qualitativeness regulates pertinence or relevancy and force of every distinction and relation; it guides selection and rejection and the manner of utilization of all explicit terms."Dan: I should think that in the MOQ, culture is the regulating force of distinctions and relations... remember how Phaedrus read about the sun flashing green before he actually looked up and 'saw' it? Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> http://moq.org/md/archives.**html<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> http://moq.org/md/archives.**html<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> Moq_Discuss mailing listListinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> http://moq.org/md/archives.**html<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> Moq_Discuss mailing listListinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> http://moq.org/md/archives.**html<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> http://moq.org/md/archives.**html<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> http://moq.org/md/archives.**html<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
