dmb says to David Morey: You refuse to deal with the evidence honestly and in fact you barely even acknowledge the evidence. I don't know where you got the idea that "undifferentiated" experience means blankness or white noise or a lack of content but that is wrong and that's what has you so confused. If you'd LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE you'd see that nobody says that. I have already proved that fact several times and in fact you already lost this debate a long time ago. And it's your own damn fault because I've supplied all the answers you'd need to see how it all hangs together. But you repeatedly refuse to read it, think about it or discuss it. You rudely demand answers and then ignore them for vague and insulting reasons. The quotes I've supplied could clarify the concept you're misinterpreting but you never have anything to say about them. As I see it, these are instances of willful ignorance and dishonest evasion, which is outrageous and quite worthy of contempt. This willful ignorance is so dishone st and lazy that it's not just a mistake and not just incorrect but also morally objectionable. ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCE or are you going to continue to evade it and otherwise respond dishonestly?
Here's a question to prompt a new, more honest direction. According to the EVIDENCE as you understand it, what do James and Pirsig and Northrop mean by terms like pure experience, pre-intellectual experience or the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum? What do THEY mean when they use such terms? And what is it about their meaning that leads you to think that DQ includes sq? I promise that you will find no evidence for your assertion and lots of evidence against it. How else can a dispute about the MOQ be settled except to look at what the philosophers actually say about it? David Morey said to DMB: ...I object to this muddle where you think conceptual and differentiated and patterned all mean the same, well why not stick to one term, I am perfectly happy with a talk about the undifferentiated flux and fundamental wholeness of DQ,... dmb says: Do you know WHY I think conceptualized and differentiated and patterned all mean the same thing? Because that is what THE EVIDENCE SHOWS US! That is how Pirsig, James and Northrop use the terms we're supposedly talking about. Like I said, "All I can do is show you the quotes that explain the terms you've misunderstood. But you refuse to deal with them honestly and in fact you barely even acknowledge the evidence." Instead of looking at the evidence, you are totally misusing these terms and it's quite clear that you do not understand what mean. For the tenth time, to construe DQ as patterned is a contradiction in terms, like saying squares should be understand as round. It's just contradictory nonsense. There is no such thing in the MOQ. David Morey said to DMB: ...if DQ is full of content, is all about variable response then what is this content,... due to your association of SQ with concepts you seem to be unable to admit all this content.... you seem to agree that it exists but can't name it, ... I still think your use of terms is very questionable, collapsing different words into one meaning, ... dmb says: No, David. My use of the terms is based on the textual evidence. Your use of the terms contradicts logic, language and the evidence. You will never escape from this big bag of nonsense until you deal with the text were are supposedly discussing (but which you are ignoring). David Morey said to DMB: ....I largely agree with what you say about SQ and DQ although you like to pretend I don't and would like to have me cast out of your fiefdom, ... dmb says: How can you agree with something that you don't understand? How can you identify a problem with an idea that you don't understand. That's logically impossible. I know what I mean to say and I know that you have shown zero comprehension of the ideas I'm trying to communicate. Hell, you can't even stop using contradictory phrases. You're talking about wet dryness, round squares, and static dynamism and preconceptual concepts. This kind of talk is embarrassing drivel. It's stupid, David, and every time you say something like that only shows how lost and confused you are. AGAIN. When you abandon your misinterpretation of "undifferentiated" and realize that it simply means "unconceptualized" - as I've pointed out about ten different times - your objections will immediately evaporate. The reason the MOQ doesn't hold together FOR YOU is that YOU have misunderstood the key terms; static and Dynamic. As a result, your questions don't even make sense. They are predicated on a profound lack of comprehension. All I can do is explain why they make no sense. All I can do is show you the quotes that explain the terms you've misunderstood. You refuse to deal with the evidence honestly and in fact you barely even acknowledge the evidence. I don't know where you got the idea that "undifferentiated" experience means blankness or white noise but that is wrong and that's what has you so confused. If you'd LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE you'd see that nobody says that. I have already proved that fact several times. You're just too clueless to realize that you lost this debate a long time ago. And it's your own damn fault. I've supplied all the answers you'd need to see how it all hangs together but you refuse to read it, think about it or discuss it. You rudely demand answers and then ignore them for vague and insulting reasons. The quotes I've supplied could clarify the concept you're misinterpreting but you don't have anything to say about them. As I see it, that is an instance of willful ignorance and a dishonest evasion, which is outrageous and quite worthy of contempt. ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCE or are you going to continue to evade it and otherwise respond dishonestly? Here's a question to prompt a new, more honest direction. According to the evidence as you understand it, what do James and Pirsig and Northrop mean by terms like pure experience, pre-intellectual experience or the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum? What do THEY mean when they use such terms? 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 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
