Hi David, First, I would like to point out how your turning the statement "I don't care what you think." into a quantity that represents a generality is misleading. In my last post I used the words "I definitely DO NOT CARE" (see below), but I used them very specifically in regards to a very specific style of discourse. I did not use them in any general sense of not caring what others thinks. Hopefully, others are intelligent enough to see through this type of misrepresentation. Assuming a general and negative context was misrepresenting my statements. You were guilty of that, weren't you?
On Jun 16, 2013, at 8:36 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, 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 do not assume one best explanation of anything. > 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 your opinion. > In particular it points to your exclusive value of Dynamic Quality and > subsequent attempts to incorporate it within static patterns themselves. Again, in your opinion. > But static patterns are not Dynamic Quality. In my understanding, Dynamic Quality is unpatterned; static quality is patterned. > 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. I do appreciate the static nature of patterns, as I state in my definition: static patterns of value pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. I have the fundamental division of Value to be unpatterned and patterned. > "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." I'll complete the quote with the rest of the paragraph: "Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they say the same thing year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, sometimes more softly, but the message is always the same." I might agree that DQ can be considered that which changes static patterns. 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
