[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

The "Bodvar by proxy" approach

The "Bodvar by proxy" approach

The "Bodvar by proxy" approach,......

oops , did i just repeat myself all the time?
Guess i did, strange, an echoe from Norway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Platt exploiting recuparguments.




2010/11/8 <plattholden at gmail.com>

> Hi Mark, All:
>
> Dynamic Quality isn't concept free. Once you name something, it becomes a
> concept. But it's a concept like "ineffable" is a concept -- pointing to
> something that cannot be defined. And that leaves intellect impotent.
> Intellect
> can only deal with defined terms. Pirsig admitted as much. But, he said go
> ahead anyway: "Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing
> metaphysics
> is a part of life." (Lila, 5)  So, yes. Even though we can't think about
> DQ, go
> ahead and think about it - another paradox illustrating critical thinking's
> feet of clay.
>
> Platt
>
>
> On 7 Nov 2010 at 19:09, 118 wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
> I would disagree with the notion of keeping Dynamic Quality concept free.
>  This is similar to the religious concept of not worshiping false idols.
>  When the prophet told the worshipers of Allah to not make concepts of
> their God, such a things was punishable by death.   I do not think we need
> to return there.  Such a dictate does not work, and is counter to the
> expansion of intellectual thought that may be happening through the
> internet.
>
> Concepts are for manipulation, there should not be anything tabu about
> them,
> to say otherwise in not rational, and somewhat mystical.  Such premises
> would certainly not help expand the notion of Quality to others.  If we try
> to keep dynamic quality concept free, this will be at the expense of MOQ,
> and is highly destructive.  Progress is measured through the introduction
> of
> concepts.  The last thing that I want to do is sit in a cave meditating on
> dynamic quality without being able to think about it.
>
> Just my opinion,
> Thank you all,
> Mark
>
>
> > Hi Ron
> >
> > Dynamic Quality is not meaningless... I am not sure where you get that
> > idea. Dynamic Quality is what's better.
> >
> > Ron:
> > > Killing intellectual patterns is useful in times of stuckness
> > > when we are faced with gumption traps. The now of experience
> > > simplifies meaning by returning to the root, through this we
> > > often become unstuck in our thinking.
> > > That is not reducing Dynamic quality to meaninlessnes or
> > > relativism that is recognizing it as the source of meaning
> > > the grounding of our intellectual patterns to the most meaningful.
> >
> > Dan:
> > Dynamic Quality is not to be associated with relativism. You may have
> > gotten that idea on account of our discussion on "betterness" and how
> > that concept is dependent-arising. Please pay attention to the word
> > concept. But remember, Dynamic Quality must be kept concept-free. As
> > far as killing intellectual patterns, I am not sure that that is to be
> > associated with Dynamic Quality either. This now of experience IS
> > Dynamic Quality. The sorting that goes on after is where intelletual
> > concepts arise.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Dan
>
> 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
>



-- 
parser