Hello everyone On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 4:24 AM, David Harding <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Dan, > > > David wrote originally: > > When two people discuss a concept intellectually - naturally there will > be disagreement. What do we do then? > > > > > Dan responded: > > Well, if there is not a disagreement, then why have the discussion at > all? > > I mean, if both participants agree, is there any reason to go on talking? > > Nice day. Sure is. > > David responds: > As I wrote originally - disagreement is a very *natural* thing. What we do > after we disagree - that's what I'm openly discussing here.. > Dan: That's fine. I don't see that disagreement is 'natural' at all but if you want to continue under that premise I see no real harm in it. And again, you seem to believe one person can hold a discussion with themselves. I guess. But they do have meds for that these days. > > > > > Dan: > > Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to be falling into a bit of > > redundancy here and that redundancy is leading you astray. Remember, > ideas > > are patterns of value. Morals and quality are synonymous in the MOQ. I > > doubt anyone here only keeps an eye on logical consistency. But if a > > contributor consistently contradicts themselves it points to a lack of > > quality. > > David responds: > I agree here. But why is there a lack of quality? Why does a contributor, > in your eyes, consistently contradict themselves? Dan: Why do you contradict yourself? I think it is on account of your holding onto that which you know rather than opening your eyes to that which is new and original. This forces you into numerous contradictions and misconceptions which continue to lead you astray. That's what I'm pointing towards. Everyone has different values. So at > some time or another - no matter who you discuss anything with you will at > some stage come upon a disagreement. They value something which you don't > which causes them to deem their words with coherence, and you the opposite. > Dan: Ummm, no. We do not value things nor do we experience things. This misconception of yours is dragging you down into the muck. We are possessed of value. Remember, Lila doesn't have Quality; Quality has Lila. > > It can feel uncomfortable to discuss these values, these morals openly. It > can be difficult. But until we openly discuss them - and through that > discussion we care for the values of others - we try and understand the > values of others - and we explain our own values - then nothing will change > - that's my point. > Dan: Again, you are operating under the assumption that we as subjects experience static quality values that are independent for each of us. We do not 'own' our values. Our values own us. > > > > > Dan: > > Well, it seems (to me) that only Marsha and only dmb can answer those > > questions. So, what is there to discuss? Are you saying they should begin > > talking to themselves? > > > > Dan wrote also along the same lines: > > Well, you seem to be agreeing with me here. If we have to be open with > > ourselves, what is there to discuss? I am unsure you fully realize what > > you're saying here. A discussion is a consideration of a question by a > > group. What you seem to be advocating is an introspection, not a > > discussion. Is that right? > > > > David responds: > No. I am advocating both. An open discussion between two people which > includes introspection is the best kind. If your values are better than > mine - why is that? Dan: I am in possession of no values. I am possessed by them. You insist that your values are your own since you continue to believe the MOQ states we experience static quality. I am pointing to the MOQ as a commonality which we all share, or can share, if we recognize its tenets. > Or are there other values which are better? Why do you have the values > which you do? Why do you deem them of value? Dan: Again, we do not possess values. Values possess us... our culture--our social and intellectual patterns of quality--informs us as to the reality of the world. You believe that you experience the world as primary value while the MOQ states experience is the primary reality of the world, and you and every 'thing' else are secondary. These static patterns known as you and I emerge from experience. > We live in a society today where people are almost frightened of openly > discussing their values and morals for fear of offending or appearing > insensitive. But the values/morals of the participants in a discussion are > not irrelevant and to be actively avoided (as is traditionally thought) - > but are the *most* important part of a philosophical discussion. > Dan: Gotta disagree once again. The participants here and people in general have no values. We are all possessed of value. See, you are treating static patterns of value as primary to reality. Once you make the transition to the MOQ, you will no longer see the world of 'things' as primary. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
