[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[John Carl]

Score?

Well, I'm too much the gentleman to try and quantify a lady, but I gotta say
Marsha that Andre is kickin' butt  these days.

In my oh so humble opinion, of course.

John

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:04 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:
>
> > Marsha to Andre:
> >
> > What kind of pattern is 'shaming'?
> >
> > Andre:
> > I did not use the expression 'shaming'. I used the noun 'shame'. This is
> an intellectual concept invented through SOM experience to designate an
> action that brings shame/dishonor upon someone..
>
> Andre, the evangelist?  Who has appointed you?
>
>
> > I used it as applying (both ways) to Bodvar and Platt by their suggestion
> that THEIR (intellectual) interpretation of the MOQ is better than Mr.
> Pirsig's...a suggestion which has been described by Mr. Pirsig as
> 'undermining' the MOQ. I therefore pointed to their challenging Mr. Pirsig's
> 'intellectual capacity' (as well as his intellectual integrity).
>
>
> Marsha:
> I find both Bo and Platt exhibit great respect for Mr. Pirsig's
> intellectual capacity and achievement.   I believe they have a great
> understanding of the MoQ.  -  You are insisting on one truth when RMP has
> clearly stated that the MoQ supports multiple truths, and that philosophical
> statements about Quality(DQ/sq) and be both true and false.
>
>
> >
> > I also put it in terms of the Cleveland Harbour Effect...meaning: you
> only see what you are looking for. We both know what glasses these two
> gentlemen have on and what they have to lose when they have to forgo their
> intellectual conviction heeding arguments to the contrary ......... A
> massive loss of (social)reputation...a form of dishonor...a massive
> reorganising of their static patterns. But they have too much to
> lose...socially speaking... . (and perhaps intellectually: they may get the
> idea that they will fall of the edge of the earth...intellectually
> speaking).
>
> Marsha:
> I certainly do not know what glasses anyone wears.  That seems like an
> egotistical, absurd statement.  There are cultural glasses, indeed, but we
> act also very dependent on individual experience: DQ and individual static
> patterns of life history.
>
>
> "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality
> is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are
> different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern
> of
> life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence
> his
> final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value
> judgments but not complete uniformity."
>   (RMP, SODV)
>
> I think your intellectual glasses may have slipped off your nose.   Have
> your pants slipped too, because I'm sensing a clueless, social ass?
>
>
> > In SOM terms, one would have a clash between reputations and
> authority...and ego's, end of story! And both camps unsatisfied.( have you
> noticed lately that Bodvar DOES consider himself a 'saint'?!)
>
> Maybe you spent too many summers at bible camp?  I consider Bo defending
> the better MoQ explanation.
>
>
>
> > But the MOQ says that (Bodvar's and Platt's) lower pattern of
> intellectual value is trying to dominate a higher intellectual pattern of
> value and therefore it is considered an immoral action.
>
> Your shaming point-of-view and tactics speak for themselves.  And calling
> another person 'immoral' is another sign of cluelessness.
>
>
>
> > Okay, one party satisfied hoping the other party learns. But NO, they
> have a (social) reputation to uphold...and sainthood (although I read today
> that the Vatican is going to apply more stringent rules to who becomes
> what)! This is a further application of brilliant Christian intellectual
> patterning, so much supported by Bodvar who is looking forward to the
> realization of this... just like the politician Wilders in the Netherlands
> who won 24 seats ( one third of parliament)!
>
> You are presuming that their concern is their social status; it's a
> projection.  I believe Bo to be completely dedicated to the Quality(DQ/sq).
>   You references here are all social.  I think you must be pulling my leg
> with such naive babble.
>
>
> > Australia is fine, but it ain't home, the Netherlands is home but it
> ain't mine no more. (freely adapted from Neil Diamond). Following DQ can
> leave you up in the air...but ye gotta come down sooner or later.
>
> If you are truly following DQ you are living in the moment, but I confess I
> haven't been recently tested.  My life this past decade (plus) has been
> mostly peaceful.  What troubles I've had have been mostly illusion.  I am
> sorry if things for you are on the chaotic side.
>
>
> > Sorry to be so long winded about this.
>
> You are not too long winded, and I do need the challenge,  Maybe.
>
>
>
> 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
>