Mark, I am sorry you are an idiot. But it isn't my fault. Piss up someone else's leg and tell them it's raining.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:58 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > I guess I find it difficult to understand what it is that you have a > problem with in terms of what I write. I am more than happy to address any > issue that you may have, but I find it difficult to know what those are. > If what I present is not consistent with Lila or ZAMM then please tell me > why. Sometimes I find it difficult to put down in words what I am trying > to say. I can tailor my words to meet your expectations so long as I know > what those are. > > On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello everyone >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:13 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Helllo Anyone interested in Quality, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Me thinks thou doth make light of dark matters, good knight. Ideas of >> >> >> >> ideas about ideas pertaining to ideas come before ideas, do they not? >> >> >> >> I challenge thee to deny this. Be thee full of care lest I smite thy >> >> >> >> grin from the grin that thou grinnist so grinnily. >> >> >> > >> > Yes, the ideas of ideas are a paradox that MoQ seeks to dispel. It is >> like >> > thinking about thinking. As you know, there is a way out of this through >> > MoQ. Me? I am smiling all the way. >> >> Dan: >> I was having a bit of fun with your comment, Mark, and championing >> Ant's witty response to it. >> > > Mark: > Fair enough. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Mark, >> >> We are having a discussion here about the MOQ, not whatever it is you >> >> are talking about. Unless you have something pertinent to add, please >> >> refrain from disrupting it. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Dan >> > >> > >> > My apologies Dan. You addressed your post to me and others so I had a >> > comment. I am still not sure what you mean by "discussing the MoQ". You >> > never responded to the appropriate means by which to discuss the MoQ. It >> > just seems that you do not like what I write and then say it is not "the >> > MoQ". Yet you never explain why. >> >> Dan: >> It would take too long to explain. I've repeatedly suggested you read >> the books so we have some commonality as a foundation to a discussion. >> As it is, we do not. >> > > How do you mean it would take too long to explain? What does that mean? > Perhaps you are too busy, that I can understand. I would suggest you read > the books as a philosopher. The lack of commonality seems to come from > your not understanding what I am presenting. I do understand what you are > saying, and I believe it is somewhat inconsistent in philosophical terms. > >> >> > >> > The MoQ is a description of Quality in metaphysical terms. I believe I >> was >> > discussing the MoQ. My comments were directed to some >> > fundamental misunderstandings that you have about the MoQ. I realize >> that >> > you do not care much for philosophy but often you seem to forget that >> this >> > is all about Quality. >> >> Dan: >> This discussion group is dedicated to the work of Robert Pirsig and in >> particular Lila. You enjoy throwing around the term Quality as if it >> is some sort of panacea for all the faux pas you make in regard to the >> MOQ. It isn't. >> > > What Pirsig wrote was as a result of his total immersion in Quality. The > metaphysics of Quality is about Quality. It is a description of Quality. > There is more than one way to describe it and remain consistent with the > books that Pirsig has written. If you believe I make faux pas with MoQ, > then tell me where. It is somewhat alarming that you keep saying this but > do not present examples. I have come to believe that you just have a knee > jerk reaction to anything I write. This is a discussion of MoQ. Do I not > have a right to discuss it without you complaining about the way in which I > discuss it? I point out inconsistencies in what you present in order to > drive a discussion, but you do not seem to be in the spirit of any > discussion about those. Perhaps my questions are too tough for you. At > least give it your best answering them if you are going to respond to me. > >> >> I may have some fundamental misunderstandings about the MOQ. That is >> quite possible. >> >> However! >> >> I've also put together a book about it and spent quite a number of >> years collecting, reading, and interpreting many and diverse writings >> regarding the MOQ as well as participating in this discussion group >> since 1998. So if you are going to point out the fundamental >> misunderstandings I have, you're going to have your work cut out for >> you, my friend. And so far, you haven't showed me anything. >> > > I have read your book, Dan. Because of this book I expect you to rise to > the occasion and discuss MoQ. This discussion may be one > of differing opinions. That is the way philosophy works. That is why it > is called a discussion, and not a rally. I have been discussing Quality > since 1974, and so what? You are a late comer to this party, and you do > not like philosophy to boot. I have pointed out many inconsistencies that > you do not try to defend. C'mon, put on your thinking cap. I can only > show you things if you open your eyes to see them. > >> >> > >> > The idea of matter came before what we now agree on to call matter. This >> > does not mean that what was used to created the idea of matter did not >> > exist, for an idea must come from somewhere. That is all I was trying to >> > point out. It sound to me like you are saying that ideas create physical >> > reality. If I bump into a tree at night, this bump happens before I >> create >> > an idea of what happened. Ideas are static, but they come from the >> dynamic. >> >> Dan: >> Again, a little reading would probably clear this up for you. The >> ongoing discussion I am attempting to have with David Harding has a >> lot of bearing on this. Rather than interrupting it with stuff like >> this: >> >> I appreciate what Dan writes, but would it not be more correct to say >> that "ideas come before the idea of matter"? >> >> I should think you would do a little thinking or a little reading >> before posting. Ideas come before ideas? Come on, Mark. How I am >> supposed to respond to this? >> > > You are supposed to explain what you meant by ideas before matter. The way > you present it, it does not make any sense. Ideas come from our brains, > they do not create our brains. Ideas build on themselves, that is what is > meant by the ghost of reason. Surely you can understand that. Ideas such > as gravity are ghosts. They have nothing supporting them. They are > fabrications of the mind, just like Quality. This does not mean we cannot > run with then, for this ability for static quality is one of the great > achievements of Man. We create static quality like a bird creates a song. > It is a human expression. We shine with ideas like the sun gives off > sunlight. We are able to build things and discuss over the computer > because of these ideas. We have created a very complicated world just with > our brains. DQ pales in comparison. > >> >> You and Marsha seem content having discussions about whatever it is >> that interests you... why can't you two remain out of our discussion? >> I realized David Harding invoked Marsha's name and I expected her to >> make some kind of uncalled-for comment. But so far as I know, no one >> rattled your chain. >> > > You mean leave you alone? Sorry, I can not do that because I believe in > MoQ, and you sometimes make a mess out of it. > >> >> As I have explained in the past, the reason I put 'Hello everyone' at >> the outset of my posts is that I realize there are many people reading >> these posts both now and in the future and I like to remind myself of >> that while writing. It doesn't mean everyone is welcome to intrude on >> the discussion with inane babble. >> > > I'm sorry, Dan, but when you address "everyone", you are inviting that > "everyone" to respond. So it DOES mean that anyone can intrude. Besides, > you have been around long enough to know how this forum works. I simply > cannot protect you there. > >> >> If you have something pertinent to add to the discussion, then by all >> means do it. Otherwise, read and learn. Or not. But there is no need >> to try and lead the discussion astray. >> > > If I do not ask the question, then there is a lot of misinformation going > out which is left unchecked. Surely you can appreciate that MoQ discussion > has some checks and balances. You cannot simply make a false statement and > expect it to stand. Your discussion with David is full of misguided > statements when it comes to MoQ. I did my best to stay out, but it was > getting very irritating. So either support your statements or respond that > you do not know. I am fine with either. This discussion seems to become > too much of an ego and ownership mess. You do not own MoQ anymore than I > do. If you can't stand the heat then you should not be in this forum. > >> >> Thank you, >> >> Dan >> > > No, Dan, thank you. > > Mark > >> >> http://www.danglover.com >> 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 -- http://www.danglover.com 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
