x-man, I find no need to attack your position, and I didn't. If it works for you, that is good. I was interested in hearing what MD'ers would present. For me, all positions, yours and especially my own, are hypothetical, not true or certain - analogy.
I do worry that your point-of-view is a bit too dogmatic and competitive to the point where felt you could report: "You just lost the arguement." I don't know how you could win an argument unless your assumptions represented the absolute truth. I was open to hearing your position and was not playing a game. I was hoping to open up the topic, that's all. Marsha On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:18 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Marsha had said: >>> >>> The subject is intellectual static patterns of value. You presented that >>> intellectual patterns are defined as art. If this is what you think, can >>> you offer an explanation? Within the definition of art there are many >>> entries. Does any one in particular appeal to you? >> >> >> [Ron responds] >> It has been characterized as the expression of value, creativity, >> interpretation and inspiration, beauty and taste , critical reflection >> broadening human nature and aiding in bringing us back to what is essential >> about humanity. The act of recognizing high quality patterns of value. >> Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties, ie:skill in >> conducting any human activity. >> >> Excellence . > > > > Woman of Mars (War) [Mars-ha!] > Art as excellence is one way, among many, to conceive of the MoQ's > intellectual static patterns of value. They (art, excellence), too, are > ideas or concepts, or more precisely: analogy. > > > [Ron] > The point is that you wanted someone to provide a definition of intellectual > patterns you could attack, I provided "art" > (sorry to spoil your fun) > > Then you asked me to explain what I meant by art, so you could attack it by > drawing more intellectual explanation out > for more of a target. > > Still you failed in mounting any kind of sucessful attack, (I'm being boring, > not allowing you to have your fun) > > Now you seem to be stating that any explanation is conceptual > and will not suffice for an accurate definition of intellectual > patterns....to which I say huh? > > Boy you must be used to reasoning with idiots because only a moron would buy > that line of doublespeaking > deceptive chaff, it amounts to an ink cloud that a squid would deploy in > order to escape. > > ..It is not merely one way to view intellectual patterns, I contend it is the > way Pirsig also views intellectual patterns > ...as art. > > Robbing you of your hateful vengence you were preparing to meet out on > intellectual patterns and those who value them. > > -sue me for the cock-block. > .. > 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
