Hi David, On Jun 16, 2013, at 2:54 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> djh: >>>>> Marsha will actively claim that she doesn't care about what folks (in >>>>> particular dmb) think.. >>>> Marsha: >>>> What I said was that dmb is not my moral or intellectual compass. I am >>>> interested everyone's opinion, but do not find dmb's analogy more >>>> significant than anyone else's. >>> djh: >>> A quick search of the archives here for the phrase "I don't care what you >>> think." - except for three messages - all the rest (fourteen) are from you >>> (or repeats of something you've written) to someone else. >>> This lack of care for intellectual patterns of folks on here results in a >>> lack of change or improvement of your opinion. As said previously - it's >>> ironic, considering your definition of static patterns includes the term of >>> 'ever-changing'. >> Marsha: >> You didn't offer the context, so I don't know if the statements extracted >> from your search pertain to dmb or intellectual patterns, so let me put it >> like this: I don't care (to be concerned or solicitous; have thought or >> regard.) what dmb thinks. As I stated, dmb is not my moral or intellectual >> compass. I am _interested_ (curious) in everyone's opinion, but that does >> not mean that I must accept those opinion's. As for intellectual patterns, >> I am tremendously _interested_ in intellectual patterns, but feel no need to >> be attached to them. > > djh: > > What does context matter? If you actively claim to not care about what > someone thinks, then this is ugly and low quality not matter the context. > Even if you disagree with someone, the act of disagreeing is a form of caring > pretending otherwise is just ugly. > > As stated previously, you misunderstand non-attachment to patterns as a > simple change in mindset - a change in mindset that involves thinking static > patterns are 'ever-changing'. But this change of mindset isn't > non-attachment - it's just an easy excuse to not care about intellectual > patterns and their fundamentally static nature. Dmb's right; you do play > games. You play games by undercutting every intellectual disagreement people > have with you by just not caring about what they're saying and pass this > rejection off as some kind of Mystical insight. This doesn't result in > Dynamic Quality but as a result of your lack of care for the static nature of > static patterns - chaos. Marsha: Do you have a specific question, because I can make no clear sense of these two paragraphs. You seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions that I cannot relate to. It also seems you are assuming one truth: yours. I have read too much Krishnamurti, Nietzsche, Pirsig, and various Buddhist and other texts, along with a whole lot of thinking on the subject, to play the one truth game. Neither you, or dmb, is my intellectual or moral compass. I am interested in hearing your ideas, especially your ideas about the MoQ, but not your petty ideas about me. Do you really think 'intellectual disagreement' is unusual? If you have a question, I will try to explain my present position on the subject. Marsha 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
