Hi Mark, >> 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.
Thank you for painting a nice picture here of which I must say I'm unsure of exactly how you are painting it as none of these accusations are true.. The only way I can think you have created such a brilliant straw man here is that you fear that in others, such as myself, that which you fear most in yourself. You are projecting your worst fears upon me. This is because.. I have *never* commented on Joe or publicly insulted him. (So I should watch out for public insults from you) I've *never* complained that you haven't been kind to me. (So I should watch out for you not being kind to me) All of my criticisms of Marsha have been philosophical. Saying that Marsha is not interested in truth is correct. Marsha openly says that she is not interested in it. (I should watch out for non-philosophical criticisms from you) I have *never* said the term or phrase "those ignorant contributors" nor do I think that is your difficulty in understanding the MOQ. (I suppose you think that everyone here is ignorant - you say as much below..) Finally you've never said to me that I should join a political forum? How can you misremember even your own words? >> 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. Once again, it's actually the opposite. The ball was in *your* court. I'm still waiting for a response to my post on the 13th of September under the title "Words and Metaphysical Mysticism". >> 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. Here we are again. You are projecting Mark. You're fearing that in others that which you should probably take a hard look at yourself and think about whether you actually do these things you accuse others of doing. It takes less than a second to click on an email and read who it is addressed to. I'm tempted to conclude that you wilfully ignored it.. >> 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! Okay so we're clear here you've named names. dmb, Ant, Dan, Ron and others "scurry out of a conversation once they have painted themselves in a corner." This post couldn't be more full of you projecting that which you fear most in yourself because there is this post of mine on the 13th which stands unanswered.. At least hold yourself to the standard you hold others to... > 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'm not sure that you have raised these issues with either Dan or Anthony. I think it's better if you raise these issues with them directly. >> 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. "When ZMM was written there was no division between Dynamic Quality and static quality and the term Quality then meant what is now meant by Dynamic Quality." - [Pirsig to Turner, November 2005] ZMM Quality is DQ of Lila. Have you read Lila Mark? >> 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. I'm all ears for a reply to my post on the 13th of September.. Thanks Mark, -David. 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
