>> [djh] >> I should start off by saying that I sent off my original post late at night >> here and it wasn't until morning that I realised that you weren't >> criticising the use of the term 'perspective' but of folks, such as Marsha, >> who only wants to talk from the one 'mystic' perspective, or Dan who only >> wants to point to DQ. On this point I couldn't agree more! If someone comes >> onto this forum and values Dynamic Quality to the extent whereby when one >> begins to talk intellectual static quality(context 2) with them and they >> continually point to Dynamic Quality(context 1) - then this is indeed a >> problem! The MOQ is static quality. When can you talk about the MOQ or its >> levels if all you're interested in is Dynamic Quality? > [Horse] > A point I would disagree with here is the implication that I am including Dan > in the 'poor reasoning' and 'sloppy thinking' debate as I think he has proved > over and over again that this is not so. You may disagree with him but he's > definitely no slouch when it comes to both reasoning and thinking. Talking > about the MoQ doesn't preclude talking about DQ as long as it's borne in mind > that any discussion is intellectual and no conversation will perform the > means to understanding DQ. Like I said, I'm happy to support conversations > about DQ that directly relate to Pirsig's MoQ. Dan has more than earned his > place and position of trust on MD…. I agree that DQ trumps intellect - but > that's not what I said. What I said was: "There is a time and a place for > discussion of DQ, if members so choose, and I will support it's inclusion on > this list with the proviso that it is not used inappropriately with the > intention of either attempting to trash Intellect or falsely claiming that > 'DQ/Mystic' thinking or perspective or whatever trumps intellect.".. Falsely > claiming that there is such a thing as 'DQ Thinking' (or mystic thinking > etc.) and using this to 'trump' another in an argument or discussion is > nonsense. There is DQ and there is thinking (or perspective or whatever) but > not a combination of the two terms! As far as I can see they are mutually > exclusive! Anyone around here that claims to think mystically or whatever is > talking crap. That DQ, 'code of Art' etc. within the MoQ trumps intellect, I > have no problem with - but trying this on in order to win an argument by > claiming mystic status is lazy and dishonest. And bullshit!!! Similarly, > trying the same argument to support an anti-intellectual position is also > dishonest and lazy. Arguments and discussions rely on reason, if they are to > have any validity at all. And repeating the same mistaken definition over and > over still doesn't make it right if it is obviously wrong! I think Dan has a > very good appreciation of how DQ fits into a discussion of the MoQ and has > made many good points about it. His ability to discuss the MoQ from an > intellectual perspective and his understanding of it is very much appreciated > by many on the list. Talking about DQ and using it inappropriately for > 'nefarious purposes' are separate issues!
[djh] Good point. Marsha will actively claim that she doesn't care about what folks (in particular dmb) think.. This lack of care results in the sloppy thinking and repeating of definitions no matter how intellectually wrong they may be. Dan, on the other hand, will take the (hours upon hours) of care to at least give static patterns the time of day but then still reject them… So while his conlusion, as others are also trying to explain to him, results in never being able to intellectually discuss anything - he still cares for the quality of static patterns which is more than we can say for Marsha it would seem. 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
