[MD] Social Intellectual

[MarshaV]

On Jul 27, 2010, at 1:43 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:37 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Marsha asked how patterns and objects differ and then responded to the explanation:
>> 
>> I asked what YOU thought the difference was between patterns and objects. This first paragraph ...does not address the question. Analogues?  How does this address the question I asked? How does this address a comparison between patterns and objects? In this paragraph who is "he says", and how does it address the difference between patterns and objects. Patterns or objects? I do not notice any reference to patterns or objects. Not reference to patterns or objects here either. Patterns?  Objects?  Intellectual competence? And how does this beautiful pronouncement address the difference between patterns and objects? And the difference between independent objects and static patterns of value is addressed here how? This doesn't address the difference between objects and patterns. So the question (the difference between objects and patterns)  is a question  you haven't had much time to investigate? 
>> 
>> 
>> dmb concluded his explanation:
>> And that's how patterns are different from things.  See?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha replied:
>> Got it.
>> 
>> 
>> dmb says:
>> 
>> The whole post was about the difference between patterns and things. "He" is Robert Pirsig, of course. 
>> 
>> All of your responses are questions that indicate zero comprehension of the explanation so I take your final comment as sarcasm. What is it you don't get? Are you even trying to understand? You did ask the question as if you really wanted to know, or so it seemed to me. But now it seems like you're just jerking me around. Again. 
>> 
>> I don't know what kind of game you think you're playing but your thoughtless response only makes you look like an incorrigible child. If you don't really want an answer, then why even ask? Are you just looking for the opportunity to show us all what 0% reading comprehension looks like, or what? 
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> I thought I had asked a direct question, but I know how difficult 
> that can be because there are metaphysical subtleties that are 
> difficult to express in words.  I'll accept your answer to be 
> 'not this, not that'.  That is an point-of-view I can even applaud.    


Marsha:
But maybe I've been too generous.  Dave, maybe you should find 
out what the word 'object' as a 'thing-in-itself', means.  And you might 
want to investigate what the meaning of 'pattern' within the MoQ.  
And then you might be able to meaningfully suggest a difference 
between the two.



 
___