dmb, On Feb 23, 2013, at 10:36 AM, david buchanan wrote:
I'm not really talking to you anymore. I'm just talking ABOUT you to others. Why? Because you just can't hear what I'm saying anyway, so why should I bother? --- On Feb 23, 2013, at 5:39 PM, david buchanan wrote: Ultimately, Marsha's attitude is hateful and irresponsible and amoral. And the actual conceptual content is just incoherent drivel. It's an embarrassment. What did Robert Pirsig ever do to Marsha such that she would abuse his work like this? What did the English language ever do to deserve this torture? --- On Mar 6, 2013, at 1:42 PM, david buchanan wrote: Why does Marsha constantly condemn intellectuals, academic philosopher and William James and then act like this is Pirsig's attitude too. It's obviously not. That's just a reflection of Marsha's anti-intellectualism, resentment, jealous and the like. It's pure bullshit. And it's merely personal too. She just can't stand the idea that I could correct her misunderstanding. It's empty, irrational, ego-driven nonsense. She turned it into a trivial contest of wills wherein she thinks she can win the argument through sheer repetition, as if posting her contradictory drivel over and over again will somehow make it coherent. It won't. --- On Mar 22, 2013, at 11:33 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: You have no business here, you confused troll. Go away. --- Marsha: I don't care what you think. I have no respect for you intelligence or your understanding of the MoQ, which seems to me to be as deep as the ink on a page. And I have no desire to have a discussion with such a childish person. Marsha On Mar 23, 2013, at 7:19 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > david buchanan wrote: > > These quotes have been selected and presented to clarify that one key point. > Do they clarify it for you? Do you see how radical this is? We really cannot > rightly understand the MOQ if we think of static patterns as actual objects, > as in SOM. The MOQ, in effect, says that scientific material and common sense > realist are one giant reification problem. > > > Marsha by repeating her much-criticized contradictory word salad: > I view static patterns of value as repetitive processes, conditionally > co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that pragmatically tend to > persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. Within the MoQ, > these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, > hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. > Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns: > patterns depend upon ( exist relative to) innumerable causes and conditions > (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) parts and the collection of parts > (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) conceptual designation > (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. Further, these > patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of > life history. > > > You can hardly accuse me of confusing static patterns of value with actual > objects. > > > > dmb says: > > snip... > > 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
