Resubmitted since Horse requested I delete David's message. With one addition. Hope this goes through this time. It is simply another contribution to the forum. For what it is worth.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:53 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello David, > Since you extended your invitation for anyone to post a response to your > rant, which is indeed most gracious of you, I will accept such invitation. > > Let me first say that I, in no way, think that your post was inadvertently > sent "my mistake". You may have had second thought after you sent it. If > so, at least you have some remorse which you have not displayed in the past > with your manner of insulting others. > > You have publicly insulted the likes of Joe, which I quickly responded to > saying you were out of place. Then you complain to me that I was not being > kind to you. Your insults to Marsha are without equal, at least dmb tries > to stick to philosophy. And of course the manner in which you respond to > me is far from philosophy. Your rant about "those ignorant contributors" > is completely lacking in any philosophical premise. Like I have said > previously, you should join a political forum, you are more suited for > that. Your philosophy is worse than weak. > > If I had a dollar for every time somebody does not respond to a question I > pose to them... > > In terms of our discussion, David, the ball was in your court. That you > chose not to respond to me speaks highly now that I know your projection of > such lack of response. That you would try to sew up MOQ to some nonsense > of your liking simply shows an arrogance which is very clear in the manner > in which you typically post. So, this was no mistake. I have dozens of > posts of yours to demonstrate this. > > As we had left it, David, your contention was that DQ IS NOT OTHER THAN > SQ. This is not surprising since you yourself claim to be stuck in SQ. > You create paradoxes and then point to them as proof. Please! If you > will go back to my last post to you and respond to it, it would be much > appreciated. If I did not see it (I do not read all the posts), then it > was my mistake. > > dmb, Ant, Dan, Ron and others are no different in their scurrying out of a > conversation once they have painted themselves into a corner. They seem > like little mice who come out and pester a cat and then scurry back into > their little hole when a response of substance is presented to them which > shows the errors of their logic. For example, dmb has confused truth with > static quality and calls them equal terms. This is unforgivable for > somebody like dmb who spent some of our valuable academic support to study > philosophy. He at least owes it to the rest of us to contribute some > philosophy rather than keep reiterating what he thinks Pirsig is > presenting. Move on dmb, make a name for yourself! > In addition... Dan has claimed that he is not interested in philosophy and has done very little reading on the subject. I find it therefore interesting that he would put himself at the forefront of such an important metaphysics. Near as I can tell from reading his book Lila's Child (thank you Dan), he played the part of a reporter and compiler. I still do not understand why Pirsig sought to explain to Dan, in dialogue, MOQ, since there were more capable people to discuss this with Pirsig. The tone that Pirsig takes with Dan is one of patience and teaching. Even so, it seems that Dan is left with little understanding of Quality, something he professes we should not discuss. That you, David, would team up with Dan as the "leaders" of MOQ is beyond me. Having said this, I do enjoy Dan't books, which I have several of on Kindle. > > Ant is no better, he will take a post I present to him, and respond in a > non-philosophical manner to maybe one point that I made. Dan is of the > kind who will take one statement out of context of mine and then delete the > rest, while responding in a manner which contains no philosophy. Ant is > more interested in his politics than in philosophy, which seems a waste. > Quality is more important. > > I really do not mind, since what I have posted remains in the archives (I > hope) so that "newbies" can become educated. To tell the truth, I have not > read your discussions with Dan, because when I do it seems that you are not > getting anywhere with MOQ. It just seems like complete semantic nonsense. > > My request is: let's discuss Quality, for that is what this metaphysics is > based on. That you, David, would confuse Quality with DQ, shows that you > do not understand the first division. Yes, that's right, let's discuss > Quality, and a metaphysics that can result from it. Are there any takers? > I believe not! For some reason Quality seems to scare you guys. Like if > you discuss it you will be hit by some lightning bolt. And don't give me > this nonsense that we cannot speak of Quality for then it disappears. That > is just an excuse for not understanding MOQ, the metaphysics of.... > > At least give it your best shot. How is the metaphysics you are > discussing based on Quality? > > I'm all ears, God knows I've tried. > > Cheers, > Mark > > > >> > >> > >> >> 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
