Hi DMB: Ian McGilchrist says in Divided Brain, Divided World PDF:
"Now further suppose because this is in fact demonstrably the case that persons who, by experimental contrivance or through injury or disease, have to rely only on the part of the brain which sees less (the left hemisphere) tend to be unreasonably certain, more rigid and exclusive than those who are, for similar reasons, obliged to rely on the part that sees more (the right hemisphere), who are more tentative and more able to see other points of view." DLT: Sorry to hear about your right brain damage. Hopefully medical science will quickly make some advances that can treat your problems. Dave PS: Your technique of deleting all or part of posts so you do not have to address them, or to help confuse the issue, is transparently oblivious. > D. Thomas said to DMB: > I took your advise in the off-list email to me and will try again respond to > our disagreement about DEFINATIONS of ³static² and ³stable². > > dmb says: > Unfortunately, you either ignored my advice or maybe it just wasn't clear what > the problem is. Either way, you second attempt repeats the same problem, only > more so. As I said (offline), "How about if you respond to this post again, > except this time you'll read the WHOLE thing before you answer any part of it. > I can tell that you didn't because you raise objections in one part that are > already addressed in later parts." You've just continued to pretend that I > didn't already address these points in the original post. For example.... > > > D. Thomas said: > ...And then there is this Lila quote: "Without stability nothing can last, > without dynamics nothing will change" ..Your proof of static being better, is > that Pirsig points to James and his division between concepts and reality is > analogous to MoQ¹s Static Quality and Dynamic Quality. > > dmb says: > Actually, I made a case that "stable" is probably a better word than "static" > and so I didn't offer anything as "proof of static being better". If you had > taken my advice, you would have responded to that part of the post, rather > than pretending I never said it. If you failed to notice twice even though I > advised you to read the original post more carefully, then that's even worse. > This is how I originally put it and an honest debate would include a response > to the things I've actually said: "In either case "ever-changing" is crucial > in understanding what "static" or "stable" is not. Those terms are both > literally defined in CONTRAST to change, as lacking change, as resistance to > change. It's okay to talk about the growth and evolution of static patterns. > That's why "stable" is probably a better word - because "static" could be > interpreted to mean completely frozen or totally incapable of change. I never > read it that way. But "ever-changing" is simply incorrect because it is the > opposite of stable or static." > > > And my I remind you that we are talking about the most basic distinction in > the MOQ. If you can't get that right, many mistakes will follow. > > I know you and Marsha can't believe it, but you're both quite confused. > Phrases like "ever-changing static patterns" are just among the most blatantly > indications of this confusion. If you don't see the problem in that instance, > there is no chance you'll benefit from any critique. This is as simple as it > gets. We're only talking about contradictory terms. This error is so simple > and so obvious that it should not even require an explanation. > > > > 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
