[MD] DMB and Me

[Matt Kundert]

> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:25:00 -0700
> From: xacto at rocketmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] DMB and Me
> 
> and what

"And" your point--remember when I said the difference 
between "riposte" and "addition/augmentation"?

Was that just a reminder to yourself, or were you continuing 
the conversation?  If you were continuing, knowing why 
you wrote it helps.

The ".." for instance--how are we to interpret that visual 
disturbance in the email message?   It's clear you often don't 
edit for grammar and typos, so was it just a stuttered period, 
or two-thirds of an ellipsis, in which case we have all sorts of

meaning

being generated.

Oh, and I saw the other thing about Dave and I kissing and 
making up, but why do other people care so much?  I 
honestly don't think we've ever had a good conversation 
for more than three revolutions (him, me, him).  Maybe five.  
I just don't find our conversations that interesting, and 
imploring me to be "plain spoken" doesn't really get at the 
problem, which is _my_ interest level--if there's nothing in 
it for me to talk to Dave, why should I?  Because Dave has 
something to teach me?  But--and this is very much my own 
opinion that stretches no further--I don't think Dave is a 
very good teacher, at least not for this particular student.  
Should I continue because people enjoy the spectacle?  But 
that's not true--some people think issues occasionally get 
discussed, and like that, maybe.

So I have this suggestion: if people enjoy the issues that 
get discussed intermittently between Dave and I, then I 
suggest trying to talk to Dave or I about them.  That's an 
exclusive "or," not one of those wimpy inclusive ones.  
Because as long as Dave talks to me the way he does (and 
I see he does it to pretty much everyone, it's just his 
natural way, I guess, and I continually wonder why anyone 
else talks to him either), I have no interest in trying to 
communicate, because it takes just way too long and too 
many brain cells to wade through the bullshit for me.  I 
know Dave has no idea what it is he does, but c'est la vie 
should be both of our reactions.  I have no idea what _I_ 
do that pisses him off so--c'est la vie.

But here's a tip for people with "take me as I am" personas: 
when you use language that can excite the emotions, 
expect emotions to get excited.  If you believe that 
emotions have no place in the purview of what your topic 
is, then if you are purposefully exciting them, you are 
throwing an obstacle in your own path.  And if you also 
admonish people for becoming emotionally excited while 
using emotional language, then you are performing a kind 
of linguistic torture.  Reading the sentence becomes not 
"what's it's meaning," but "first tame your inflamed 
passions, then look for meaning."

I don't like being made to dance the two-step all the 
goddamn time.

Matt


> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 5:04:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] DMB and Me
> 
> 
> and?
> 
> > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:56:35 -0700
> > From: xacto at rocketmail.com
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: Re: [MD] DMB and Me
> > 
> > "the process of defining dynamic quality" implies that DQ is primary..
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Steven Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 2:16:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MD] DMB and Me
> > 
> > Hi Matt,
> > 
> > > Steve said:
> > > [Quality] is undefined because it is inexhaustably
> > > describable.
> > >
> > > Matt:
> > > This is awesome because it never occurred to me to gloss
> > > Quality's undefinition this way.  I've been glossing it as
> > > anti-essence for years, but this takes a big leap forward
> > > (at least in terms of integrating Pirsig and Rorty, which I
> > > don't require everyone to care about).  Way to go, Steve.
> > 
> > I got it from this LC annotation:
> > 
> > RMP:
> > Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can
> > be described is a
> > process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge
> > they are static
> > patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say
> > correctly that Dynamic
> > Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because
> > definition never exhausts it.
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3