>>>>>> 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
djh: There might not be one truth, but there is one universal static quality. In line with this - there is high and low static quality. If you think it is a good idea to claim that static quality patterns are ever-changing then, being a philosophical discussion board - this, like all ideas, is open for discussion. Specifically, we can discuss whether this idea is high or low quality. So - Your idea of static patterns as 'ever-changing' is low quality as it goes against the fundamentally static nature of static patterns. 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
