I mean sigh not sign by the way, also, if you actually provide some good reasons I am happy to listen, if they are good reasons I am open to persuasion and can change my mind, this is what I mean by intellectual integrity, also yes your quotes hint that Pirsig agrees with you, but they are not conclusive, and I am asking if your 'keep SQ and DQ strictly separate at all times' view agrees to experience or is the best approach, obviously most of the time that view is fine, but are you being too exclusive, black and white, excluding experiences that are more mixed or going through an SQ to DQ transition, where we can recognise the change in stability or the stability in change, this both includes the distinction but qualifies the underlying inseparability, it is all quality in the end -as you agreed originally but then got all confused apparently you say, I don't feel confused, can you prove I am, happy to see this set out in black and white if you have seen some flaw in this that is beyond me, clearly you feel strongly about not adding such a simple qualification to the SQ and DQ distinction, but I have no idea what your good reasons are, the only one you have offered is that you find it confusing, well that is unfortunate, but as I am not finding it confusing that reason will have to remain as your problem, not a good reason for me to rule it out. Feel free to offer better reasons if you can, and cut the crap.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [MD] DQ is neither this nor that? From: David Morey <[email protected]> To: [email protected] CC: [Arlo] You (along with Marsha) continue to conflate this interaction/oscillation (whatever analogy you prefer) into just static quality. DM: No I don't [DM] so you say, I am questioning why this makes you so uncomfortable [Arlo] It doesn't make me 'uncomfortable', this is a philosophy forum, isn't it? DM: In terms of intellect and MOQ values obviously, if I don't spell it out you always head off in the wrong direction it seems. [DM] I'd say sure make the distinction clear one moment, and then qualify it with transitional moments where the distinction collapses, where sq and dq appear together or morph from one into the other.. [Arlo] And this is just more of that confusion, David. DM: Clearly I say accept the DQ SQ distinction but can't see any problem with adding a qualification about the underlying unity or interlinking of SQ and DQ, how simple is that, any fool can follow that surely, if you disagree and have good reasons not to follow this let's hear it, lack of integrity seems to stop you, I can't believe mere stupidity is your problem, I have no trouble following everything you say, I just say it is wrong and inadequate and give my reasons, I don't just complain, sign and moan, you should man up and try my approach too. 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
