[MD] on the radio

[david buchanan]

Ian said to dmb:
If most of that sentence was clear as a summary of MoQ, then I'm puzzled why 
you didn't just identify the key points that needed clarifying in the first 
place.

dmb says:
A clear summary of the MOQ!? Hardly. You merely made vague references to the 
MOQ as if mere proximity could lend support to the drivel.

Ian continued:
You seem to be using this thread to take a pop at me, using pejorative terms 
like "drivel", "narcissism"
and "smoke screen" but I think we've narrowed down the specific points - we 
got there.

dmb says:
Using this thread to take a pop? That's just not true. Since you are 
apparently capable of producing nonsense on any topic, any thread would be 
just as useful.

Ian asked dmb:
Are you saying you are sceptical there is any relevance / connection of QM 
to MoQ?

dmb says:
No. I'm saying that I'm skeptical about your ability to say something 
intelligible and coherent on the topic.

Ian said:
What I'm exploring, and bringing in many metaphors from other people, is the 
nature of "in relation to". ..."In relation to"  The relationship is dynamic 
- no brainer surely - basic MoQ.

dmb says:
No brainer? Actually, I think it would be exactly wrong to say the 
relationship is dynamic. According to the MOQ all thoughts and things are 
static, are derived from DQ.

>From page 64, middle of chapter 5...
Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual 
abstactions. ..Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the 
sense that there is a knower and a known,..."

>From page 99 of Lila, opening of chapter 8...
"There's a principle in physics that if a thing can't be distinguished from 
anything else it doesn't exist. To this the MOQ adds a second principle: if 
a thing has no value it isn't distinguished from anything else. Then, 
putting the two together, A THING THAT HAS NO VALUE DOES NOT EXIST. The 
thing has not created the value. The value has created the thing. When it is 
seen that value is at the front edge of experience, there is no problem for 
empiricists here. It simply restates the empiricist' belife that experience 
is the starting point of all reality."

When you add these together the idea is that things and the relationships 
between them are both static patterns drawn from Quality, the 
undifferentiated, primary empirical reality. So saying that the relationship 
is dynamic or that things interact dynamically is a very confused notion. 
Its drivel. In that sense it is a no brainer. Its not clear what it is 
you're even talking ABOUT. What is supposed to be in relation to what?

Ian said:
The relationship is "two-way" or directionless if you prefer - not only are 
the objects either end of this relationship subordinate to the relationship 
itself, but neither end (object or subject) has any "precedence" over the 
other.

dmb says:
I can't make any sense of that. The relationship of what is directionless? 
The subject/object gap? Quantum mechanics and the MOQ?

Ian said:
The relationship is characterised by Pirsig as "quality" itself - a 
"valuing" relationship, but is ultimately "ineffable". In some sense it is a 
"creative" relationship, nothing really exists without it, reality arises 
out of it. Ineffable or not (remember I'm not a metaphysician) I'm 
suggesting many metaphors used in sciences that explore complex causal 
relationships exhibit parallels that may be worth our understanding.

dmb says:
Causal relationships? Pirsig eliminates causality and replaces it with 
value. Cause and effect make sense in a SOM metaphysic, but not in the MOQ.

Ian said:
If you agree that exploring those parallel's is valuable, we can pick up on 
them, and take it from there; if you don't there will be little point.

dmb says:
Well, there are interesting issues worth exploring but I think its pretty 
clear that there is little point in exploring them with you. I think there 
isn't much point in exploring anything with you. If memory serves, the first 
thing I ever said to you in this forum was, "Huh?". We were talking about 
Pearl Harbor and WW2 when I said, "Sorry ian, but that makes no sense". And 
its been like that ever since. But in recent months you have offended me 
with your drivel and control freakiness countless times. Now I'm on your 
case so hard becasue I sincerely believe that your contributions here are 
worth less than zero, that people will only be confused and misled if they 
take you seriously, and so I'm making a case for that.

I mean, this exchange has been all about just one of your sentences. After 
several attempts, you still have not made any sense of it. And I even said 
you could abandon the original sentence and just explain what you were 
trying to say. If you can't even explain your own opinions, what the heck do 
you think you're doing here? Yes, obviously, I'm describing your assertions 
in "pejoritive" terms. I think that's only accurate. But its not like I'm 
insulting your mother or your looks. I'm giving you a hard time about your 
preformance as a thinker, as a philosopher who claims to be one of the MOQ's 
champions. Given the quality of your posts, I think claims along these lines 
can have no merit. While there is no shortage of drivel around here, I feel 
that its fair to single you out because the contrast between these claims 
and your actual contributions very, very stark.

I mean, its probably not fun to hear this but its fair game, isn't it? If a 
guy thinks another guy is handing him a load of bullshit, he should not let 
him get away with it, right? Which act is more aggressive and intellectually 
suspect, trying to bullshit somebody or calling somebody on it? Its likely 
that reads harsher than I mean it. I'm using "bullshit" in the philosophical 
sense; speech that respects something else besides the truth of the matter, 
that has no respect for truth and serves a different purpose. Clarity serves 
intellectual truth and smoke screens serve bullshit. That's all I'm saying.

For the fourth time, or is it the fifth, what was that sentence supposed to 
mean? What were you trying to say? Each of your "clarifications" only adds 
more drivel. C'mon, this is a completely unloaded, open-ended question that 
allows you to explain an actual idea about the MOQ. Can you explain it or 
not? If I recall the statement in question began with something like, "What 
the MOQ adds to this is...".  It seemed the only part of the post that 
touched on the MOQ so it seemed important. After reading it a half dozen 
times and still finding no sense in it, I reached for my keyboard and fired.

They shoot horses don't they? You know, when they don't have legs to stand 
on, Bang!

Thanks
dmb

P.S. Ian, I don't love you anymore. The wedding is off. You can keep the 
ring.

_________________________________________________________________
Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces 
friends module. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk