>>>>>>>> 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, are 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. >> >> 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. > > > Marsha: > > What is the "one universal static quality"? I have no idea what you might > mean, not a hint. > > My definition of static patterns are of 'processes (events) that are > ever-changing'. They are static in that they 'pragmatically tend to persist > and change within a stable, predictable pattern." You can look the > definition up in the archives. - What the heck is "fundamental static > nature of static patterns". Rather circular sounding statement, isn't it? > > Indeed, you can discuss whether my definition is of high or low value, but > you cannot demand that I agree with you and than call me names if I don't. > We may hold different views. Philosophy is filled to the brim with different > views on all sorts of topics, general and specific. I am perfectly > comfortable with "intellectual disagreement", but calling me "incoherent", or > "troll" "creep" & "liar" or "asshole", or any other personal, projected > putdown is small-minded. That style of thinking I definitely DO NOT CARE > about! However, I still may be interested in your intellectual ideas, and > especially interested in your ideas about the MoQ.
djh: Have I called you names Marsha - or any of those names you quote? No. Name calling is nothing but ad-hominem and a form of evil. Have I ever said disagreement is a bad thing? No. Discussing intellectual disagreements and determining the best explanation of the MOQ is what this place is for. I have said however - that your idea of static patterns being 'ever-changing' is low quality and contradictory to the fundamentally static nature of static patterns. I have Also pointed out that your value of the term 'ever-changing' in regards to static patterns points to an underlying misunderstanding that you have about the MOQ. In particular it points to your exclusive value of Dynamic Quality and subsequent attempts to incorporate it within static patterns themselves. But static patterns are not Dynamic Quality. By definition that is what they are. If you cannot appreciate the static nature of static patterns then you do not appreciate the most fundamental division of the MOQ. "Static morality is full of heroes and villains, loves and hatreds, carrots and sticks. Its values don't change by themselves.. they say the same thing year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, sometimes more softly, but the message is always the same." 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
