dmb, Yes, I like the two-view perspective of the MoQ. There is the MoQ as the intellectual/conceptual metaphysical system, with all its examples and supporting explanation, which was presented by RMP in 'LILA' and with interviews, text and letters; and there is the MoQ as Reality = Quality (Dynamic/static), or as I prefer to think of it: Value(unpatterned/patterned).
To your objection to my designating static patterns of value as ever-changing, there should be no problem, as I have explained many times, in understanding that patterns may maintain a static identity at the same time as they and their context are undergoing constant change. Oh my, you have called me a bad philosopher and a troll, but really I am merely a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and conceptualized static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. Marsha On Oct 28, 2012, at 4:39 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha stands firmly upon a paradox that she doesn't understand. She's > remains confused as to the meaning of the MOQ's central distinction, i.e. the > distinction between concepts and reality, between static quality and Dynamic > Quality. > Pirsig and James both say "there must always be a discrepancy between > concepts and reality". Somehow, she takes this to mean that concepts are > unreal or that they are just fleeting illusions. This stance is very > convenient if one is bad at dealing with concepts. I suppose that's the main > motive for her stance. She is trying to make her own confusion into a virtue. > It's not. Being an enlighten mystic simply isn't the same as being a bad > philosopher, much less a confused troll. > Yep, Marsah stands firmly on a paradox because she thinks this will give her > a license to indulge in a lot of contradictory nonsense. You know, like > saying that "static patterns" are "ever-changing". She thinks that anything > is true so long as the phrase "for me" is included with the claim. She thinks > that nothing is true so long as it involves words and concepts. Even though > the central idea in the MOQ is that "there must always be a discrepancy > between concepts and reality", she insists that every MOQers problem is that > they mistake concepts for reality. > I could on like this all day long. Her position is one big pile of confused > nonsense. And no matter what anyone says, she insists on repeating the same > contradictory drivel over and over again. > > >> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:59:06 +0100 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] belief >> >> Marsha to Andre: >> I take the two-view perspective of the MoQ. There is the MoQ as the >> intellectual/conceptual metaphysical system, with all its examples and >> supporting explanation, which was presented by RMP in 'LILA' and with >> interviews, text and letters; and there is the MoQ as Reality = Quality >> (Dynamic/static), or as I prefer to think of it: >> Value(unpatterned/patterned). >> >> Andre: >> Can't weasel your way out of this one Marsha and you know it but keep on >> confusing the two. As Reality the MoQ does not exist! That is why, in >> our everyday world, as we are living it moment to moment the MoQ is an >> intellectual pattern of value. It is absurd and nihilistic to adhere to >> both views at the same time in the way YOU do. Obviously you are not a >> mystic, obviously you are not an intellectual. Obviously you do not >> understand one iota about MoQ. Both would understand not to confuse the >> two which you constantly do...whenever it suits you...remember?..."DQ is >> none other than sq...sq is none other than DQ", as you have argued so >> often. And your response shows this confusion again and again. >> >> It is a ploy, a stance, an excuse for getting you out of tight >> intellectual situations and the way you do it does nothing to bring you >> any sort of respect, acceptance or compassion. >> >> I take the NOT-TWO-VIEW perspective of the MoQ...just to put you in the >> picture. Hope this may help...but I doubt it very, very much. >> >> Go away Lucy.... . >> 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 ___ 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
