Hi Dan, > 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. David responds: A person *can* hold a discussion with themselves.. an internal discussion? What's wrong with that? Is this meant to be an insult? An ad-hominum? But more than anything probably the most interesting thing you've said is that you think disagreement isn't natural? That's amazing to me. How could disagreement be anything but natural when there are different values in the world and some of those values are clearly going to cause disagreement? This is very unusual. Or are you just trying to be difficult? What is 'natural' to you? I think all quality is natural - what do you think? > Dan writes many things in regards to experience and Quality: > 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. > > 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. > > 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: > 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. > > 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. > > 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. We have been over this so many times. I have responded to all these questions before.. And I'm not sure I have thought about it long enough to present what I think to you in an original enough way so that you will be able to see what I'm saying… But you seem so keen so I'll persist.. Along the lines of my original post - I think it's very difficult - if not impossible - to have a good discussion with someone who neglects the importance of their own values in a discussion. What folks value - it shapes their logic. We have a two and a half thousand year history of logic finding - neglecting the importance of values - it's easy to miss how a perspective which includes values might change things. What are you interested in then? Only discussing logic regardless of your values? So that's my perspective and yet I'm sure you reject this perspective - you are intent on pointing me towards a perspective which says that we do not have values but values have us.. And so many times I've pointed out to you that I agree with this yet you don't believe me.. Why would I say I value something I don't? But then that's an incorrect question on my part because 'we do not value things'. You seem to advocate Never discussing values - ever. If I cannot say these 'x' static values make up the person I call Dan - then you don't exist. But you do exist.. You exist as a collection of static values capable of responding to DQ. What those values are makes up who you are.. Do you not agree with that? As I've said so many times to you before - it is convenient for us to say "these are my values" but that we do so doesn't necessarily immediately there is a 'me' separate from 'my values'. But it is simply a convenient way for me to refer to the values which make up the person we call 'me'.. How else can I refer to the values which make up 'me'? Or the values which make up Dan? Can we talk about these values or do they not exist? 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
