[MD] DMB and Me

[Andre Broersen]

dmb to Matt, Steve, Andre and all interested moqers:

Andre seems to understand and I appreciate the help. Hopefully, this
post will clear up some misunderstandings. Steve has made a series of
clear and succinct remarks that lend themselves to this task.

Andre:
Once again thank you for your encouragement Dave, however I must plead
ignorance of the intricacy issues discussed in this thread and the
content of the dialogues between you, Steve and Matt.
Given this admission I ask for understanding and pull Phaedrus' quest
in defence. He admitted he was a poor scholar. He was after something
and his focus perusing philosophical ideas generated by 'the Greats'
amounted to one thing only, and that was finding confirmation of his
Quality idea as fundamental to everything we know.

One of his arguments in defence was that, to read and understand every
philosophical idea generated one must live to at least 500 years and
the problem also being that their arguments can be quite convincing.
In other words: you can easily get sucked in.

My exposure to philosophical ideas lasted 1 Semester, and the
dialogues usually to place in the local pub, and not the classroom. To
be a bit unkind (perhaps) I do not carry the philosophical garbage the
dialogues convey. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

I am after quality statements. I am after furthering my understanding
of the MoQ. I am after furthering my understanding of DQ/SQ of which
we are.The cycle you're working on is yourself.

I find Nagarjuna, difficult at first, very revealing. Once the penny
has dropped ll is clearer. Similar to the Quality idea.

The wonderful role and power of language is a static tool.It cannot
help us get a 'grip' on DQ. We cannot 'nail it down'. As I said to
Bodvar, it is a static PoV attempted to be used to describe something
dynamic. This is not only impossible, it is also immoral within the
MoQ.The closer you think you come to describe it,the further you move
away from it.

The problem with a SOM rationality/attitude is that it doesn't like
'things undefined'. It feels uncomfortable with the, so called,
'unknown'. A bit like the fear of the bishop having a saint in the
parish! SOM needs to name and define so it can, by implication,
control.

You have tried, again and again, to make this distinction clear in
your posts from within the radical empiricist experience. Once again
Phaedrus talks about the difficulties involved in religious
conversions. If they do not see the quality in this, your efforts will
be futile. If they do..you may have a chance.

You are a very patient person and I thank you for not chucking it in.
I really appreciate your posts and thoughts and arguments.

I am clear on the two perspectives. It makes the MoQ, ZMM,LILA and the
annotations much more understandable. Confuse the two and you get
nothing but problems, misinterpretations, contradictions and
frustrations.

For what it is worth.
Andre