> [djh to Arlo] > Goodness Arlo, I've said multiple times even directly to you that Marsha > makes the SOM=intellect mistake. My very last post to you said exactly this: > "And dmb's right when he points out that Marsha appears to have misread ZMM > and its riling against SOM as riling against intellect and thus cannot > distinguish between the cure or the disease.." > > > ...Anyway here's where we differ... The question isn't *if* Marsha confuses > SOM with intellect but *WHY*. People only do what they do because of what > they value.. *WHY* does Marsha confuse SOM with the cure? That is the > "root" of the issue. Being that I value the MOQ - I think that values are > at the "root" of everything. ...Marsha appears so enamoured with the insight > that DQ is the source of all things she is refusing to make an intellectual > pattern out of this insight which would result in her being able to move into > context 2 of the MOQ. ...Unless you can show Marsha this is her mistake, > she won't be interested and nothing will change. Because it's clear that > pointing out the intellectual mistake of SOM=Intellect to her is going to get > you nowhere until you show her the *root mistake* of over valuing DQ and thus > not appreciating the actual difference between DQ and sq… > > > [dmb] > Since the archives are loaded with posts wherein Marsha fails to distinguish > the cure from the disease, David, getting you to agree that she's making this > mistake isn't exactly a grand victory. But it's a good start.
[djh] A start?!? How many times do I have to say something to you till you notice that I'm actually agreeing with you? I've been saying much the same thing since April.. djh to dmb [28 April 2013]: "Okay I agree with all that about the mistakes of others with SOM and mistaking the problem(SOM) with the solution (Intellect). " djh to dmb [11 May 2013]: "Right - and I don't disagree with any of that. The most important *intellectual* question about all this though - is *why*? Why does she make the mistake that the cured patient is the disease? We can only answer this question if we look at what she *values*. I have gone into what I think Marsha values - and why she should once again respect the staticness of the intellectual level - above." djh to dmb [23 May 2013]: "..once again I'll say it - you're right that Marsha mistakes the cure with the disease.. The important question is *why*. There is more to Marsha than her fuzzy logic.." > [dmb] > I don't know if we can ever get to the "root cause" but I also don't see why > we need to. Even further, your way of framing the issue gives her way too > much credit and let's her off the hook, as if her mistake isn't really a > mistake but just a difference in values. [djh] My goodness. *ANY* disagreement is going to be about values. Point to me something that isn't a value! Because everything is about values what Marsha values isn't some unimportant uninteresting thing. It's the whole thing! You say so much that I agree with dmb and then you make a statement like this which just boggles.. I've been talking about how if you read what she writes Marsha is essentially a 'bad' Mystic since January of 2012 in a post entitled "Marsha is a Mystic"(granted incorrectly directed to Mark). And I've also fleshed out this idea in a post entitled "Good mystic, bad mystic" in August of last year. And if you'll ever read any of my exchanges with Marsha you won't see me 'defending' her, you'll see me pointing out the difference to her between what static quality and Dynamic Quality is because as a bad mystic she fails to see the difference. It's this misunderstanding of the fundamental difference between between sq and DQ of Marsha (and others) that leads them to fail to appreciate how dramatically different the MOQ's intellectual level is to SOM. You say.. "In order to stop treating the cure as if it were the disease, Ian and Marsha have to first understand the difference between SOM and the MOQ. Obviously, they don't see the difference. Anti-intellectualism is an inevitable result of this confusion." To which I say - the only way Marsha will see the difference is if she actually understands what the MOQ is to begin with. And she'll only understand what the MOQ is by first seeing the difference between what DQ and static quality is. Marsha knows SOM already. She *doesn't* know the MOQ's fundamental distinction between what static quality what Dynamic Quality is.. To Marsha, it seems, the MOQ's insight that DQ is the creator of all things is where it starts and ends. But we both know that there is a completely different quality which she fails to appreciate the value of. Her over-valuing of this Dynamic Quality insight means that she cannot see the quality of static quality. It's as if she has Dynamic Quality viewing glasses on and refuses to take them off even when faced with nothing but static quality. For a start that's why she insists that static quality patterns are 'ever-changing'. > [dmb] > Long story, short; you'd like to suppose that the love of mysticism or > Buddhism or meditation or experience or whatever leads to a denigration of > static intellectual values. You think her love of DQ leads her to made the > bogus equation (wherein intellect=SOM, wherein static intellectual values are > reifications, etc..). But I think that is the crucial mistake and it leads > her to misunderstand the relations between the static and the Dynamic, which > leads her to misunderstand Buddhism's relation to the MOQ, mysticism's > relation to the MOQ and the relation between concepts and experience in > general. That one crucial mistake makes a huge mess of all of that and more. > This what I've been saying for a long time but, obviously, Marsha has no > interest in dealing with this criticism. [djh] I disagree that intellect=SOM is the root issue. It's her misunderstanding of the alternative offered by the MOQ [i.e the distinction between sq and DQ] which causes her to conclude that intellect=SOM. If she actually understood the MOQ's fundamental distinction she wouldn't make the statement that intellect=SOM. That's why if she understood the difference between sq and DQ - none of this would be an issue. > [dmb] > As far as I can tell, nobody around here is opposed to Buddhism or meditation > or experience. That is not the problem. It's the rigid and stubborn > persistence of her confusion about all those things. That's the problem. It > is just a matter of failing to comprehend idea, failing to make crucial > intellectual distinctions. It's not that complicated, you know? These are > just conceptual errors and misreadings. It's not some big mystery, David. The > woman is simply wrong about some very basic terms and concepts.. That's why I > keep saying that she has no business being here. I think she's just here > because she's lonely, or negative attention is better than nothing, or some > personal need that has nothing to do with metaphysical discussions. How > obnoxious is that? [djh] No it's not some big mystery. Marsha is wrong. But I doubt it's for as sinister reasons as you suggest. I think looking at what she writes about - she values Buddhism and alluding to DQ. The trouble is she doesn't fully understand the difference between 'it' and sq.. > [dmb] > And even if there were hidden values and motives behind her mistakes, how are > they ever going to be discovered without honestly discussing those mistakes? > This is never going to be addressed as long as she continues to evade the > substance of the matter. [djh] Well I don't think there are 'hidden' values. Just looking at what Marsha writes you can see that she values alluding to DQ and Buddhism. But you're certainly right about the evasions but I think that to her it is all about avoiding static quality and trying to point to DQ. Again - trouble is she doesn't fully understand the difference between them and so it just ends up being anti-intellectual and insulting. 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
