dmb,
Let me state that I do not attack your MoQ point-of-view because I understand that you view the MoQ through your exposure to William James and pragmatism, while I view the MoQ through my explorations of Buddhism, which includes a long-time meditation practice. I am not a Buddhist scholar and am still learning all the time. And you are not a Jamesian scholar. Their is a good possibility that we will never share the same point-of-view. On Sep 19, 2013, at 1:31 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > A couple of weeks ago (September 5th) in a different thread Marsha said to > dmb: > > ... you've repeatedly said that I don't understand the difference between > Dynamic Quality and static quality. I have forever said that the difference > is Dynamic Quality is unpatterned, while static quality is patterned? Am I > wrong? > > > dmb says: > Yes, I think you are confused about the MOQ's central distinction. It is > correct to say that static patterns are patterned, obviously, and DQ is not > static or patterned. Marsha: My statement may not be the best support for your point-of-view, but it is not wrong and it shows that I do know the difference and that I am not confused. > dmb: > But you also describe static patterns as "ever-changing", which defies the > meaning of "static" and "patterned". Marsha: Yes, and I presented reasons that justified my claim, which included a justification for patterns "Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns." And meanings can have altered meaning within a particular philosophical theory as you should know from your exposure of Heidegger: 'existence' being put forth as having a meaning that had never concerned Western philosophy before. My most recent reasons given were: My experience is that static patterns change continually both synchronically (in the moment) and diachronically (over a length of time), but change within a stable, predictable pattern. The pattern emerges in the moment-to-moment experience. As an experience passes, so does the pattern, only to emerge again in the following moment as a different expression of that pattern. And, of course, patterns change in the evolutionary sense. This point of view agrees with my experience, and the MoQ is based on empirical experiences. When and if this no longer agrees with my experience, I will alter my definition. > dmb: > That just one of many examples wherein you demonstrate a misunderstanding of > this very key distinction. Marsha: The only problem with my definition of static patterns of value is that it conflicts with your particular point-of-view. That is not enough to label it a general confusion. Saying that is "just one of many examples wherein you demonstrate a misunderstanding of this very key distinction." is an unfounded accusation. If there are many examples, lay them all out. Present my statements accompanied by their context (post subject and date&time). And then please stay within the our discussion instead of going off to discuss a different aspect with a third party. > Dmb: > To parrot one of Pirsig's slogans is not enough to show any comprehension and > it's certainly not a proper response to the long and detailed explanation > that you've already dismissed because, as you put it, it's sophomoric and it > sucks. Marsha: Your long detailed explanations are too general and do not address your specific complaints. > dmb: > The latest insulting dismissal is part of a years-long pattern wherein you > find a reason to dismiss the criticism rather than face up to it responsibly. Marsha: Again, there was no detailed explanation backed by evidence to support your complaint. > dmb: > Based on your posts over the months and years, I have concluded that your > view of the static and Dynamic is riddled with contradictions and confusions > and apparently you are unwilling or incapable of discussing any of these > criticisms. Marsha: Your conclusions do represent reasonable evidence to justify your specific complaints. If this is suppose to represent a philosophical discussion present actual reasons. > dmb: > It seems everyone except you thought my last explanation was bloody good. Marsha: "Everyone" is a universal qualifier, and you cannot possibly know what "everyone" but me thinks. And you've tried to bully and humiliate anyone who tried to support me. Khoo even told me you harrassed him offlist by accusing him of being Marsha posing as Khoo. > dmb: > Would it really kill you to read it and think about its meaning and then > respond honestly? Marsha: You do not have the style of someone I want to learn from. You do not manifest the attributes of someone I consider to represent Value. > dmb: > I'm sure it would help if you just look at it as if it were about the MOQ > rather than a set of accusations about you. Marsha: I have told you that I can accept that your interpretation is value for you because it fits with your understanding of William James. > dmb: > Try to discern the ideas, especially the good ones, and try to understand the > critical remarks about the bad ideas without attaching yourself to them. Marsha: I have done that. See above comment. I seem no reason why I should put your point-of-view above my own reasoning and experience. > dmb: > The problem with the constant excuses and evasions is that there can't be any > discussions or philosophical engagements. Marsha: The problem with vague, bombastic complaints is that it does not lead to respectful discussion. > dmb: > Is there any other situation where it's MORE inappropriate to be a > conversation killer or a philosophy hater? Seriously, such behavior is as > wrong as it can be for a place like this. Insult and evade, dismiss and > evade, has been your pattern for YEARS! You just refuse to do the only thing > you're really supposed to do. That's not right. How can you fail to see that? > Don't you see how much hostility it inspires in all kinds of people? Sigh. > This whole paragraph is just more wasted time talking about your behavior > instead of talking about the MOQ. Marsha: Try to present an actual argument and present actual evidence to support your claim. Where are the actual quotes made by me that put me in the category of a nihilistic relativism or a solipsistic subjectivism? 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
