[MD] Step One

[118]

Hi Andre,

I am sorry you feel that way.  I am more than happy to leave politics out of
this.  My posts have been in response to questions posed to me.  I can
certainly not respond, and will do so.

I provided some questions to Dan concerning SOM.  If you thought my response
was not appropriate then it was only because of the condescending way that
he posted on this forum, and wished I would go away.  I am not sure if you
saw his response, but it was dismissive at best; so before you begin taking
sides please review the context.  Personally naming somebody as "silly" as
Dan likes to do is not very professional.  If he is protecting the MOQ, then
a simple answer to my questions would have been appropriate, and not the
sarcastic tone which he used. It appears that some treat this forum more
like a dictate rather than a forum for discussion.  You will find that in
general my posts are most respectful.

Yes, my intent is to provide clarity to Mr. Pirsig's view of Quality.  And
unless Horse is Pirsig in disguise (the horses from Plato's analogy), we are
left free to do so.  I do not believe there is any authority currently on
this forum that dictates where it goes.  It is a messy business working
through the internet, but you get what you pay for.

I will do my best to be respectful, but if there is any sarcastic
dismissiveness because people do not like what I have to say, then I respond
in kind.  Nobody is getting shot, you do not have to read my posts, and I
would suggest that you do not from now on.  I have a lot more at stake that
MoQ becomes something than you do.  This is not an exercise in armchair
philosophy, and I will ask you to review my posts from two years ago and
most recently before you judge.

Now Andre,  if you would be so kind as to respond to the following question,
I would be most grateful:  Where does SOM come from?  I am not asking for a
definition, I am asking for a process.  What are the causal events that
bring about SOM?

Thanks in advance,
Mark

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>wrote:

> Mark to Dan:
>
> Well, then, my only response is:  Go back to your master, you effing
> rottweiler!  You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food
> waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy.
> Stop
> your pathetic snarling on these airwaves!  Don't come back until you have
> something productive to bark about!  Go now, shoo,shoo.  That's a good boy.
>
> Mark to Ian:
> What kind of controls does the UK place on its private insurance carriers?
> It's only an argument if you want it to be. Left, right, left, right,
> left, right ...
>
> Marsha:
> promoting youtube for the zillionth time.
>
> Mark:
> I like Ham's notion of accepting and seeing where it leads.  However, being
> the biochemist I am, I look for cause.  What divides the subject object?
>
> Do words create Value?
>
> Horse:
>
> I've tried to avoid getting dragged into the stupidity of what's been
> going on here but obviously haven't done a very good job.
>
> So folks, on those threads that have degenerated into political
> name-calling, left-right disputations etc. I am requesting that they
> come to a close now.
>
> Andre:
> Mark obviously does not belong on this discuss. To respond to Dan like that
> is showing nothing but contempt on top of a waste-full ignorance of what the
> messages, as revealed through ZMM and LILA, are.
>
> You, Mark, as a self proclaimed scientist, feed the likes of Marsha, Ham,
> Bodvar  and Platt through your confirmation and obvious inability of getting
> away from the SOM way of dealing with things ( and I do mean 'dealing' and
> 'things' in the way they are intended). Dealing with the given (whilst you
> seem to have no idea that you are the one actively participating in creating
> the given)...as things confronting you.( this is a stance dating back to
> Newton/Locke times)
>
> It supports Dan's observation that you have obviously not understood either
> ZMM nor LILA.
>
> The MOQ points the finger towards this process yet, you are oblivious. Yes,
> your intellect is SOM.
> It seems to me that you find it difficult to see SOM as one way of looking
> at the world disregarding other ways of looking at the world. You seem to me
> to be a true representative of the dominant Western paradigm...and are
> willing to create the most wonderful arguments (political)to sustain this
> paradigm.
>
> What are you hoping to achieve by being here on a discuss talking about Mr.
> Pirsig's MOQ?( Not yours, not mine, not Marsha's or Platt's nor Arlo's or
> dmb's or Horse's or Adrie's or Ron's, or Steve or Ian, or Graig's)...no Mr.
> Pirsig's.
>
> The MOQ is supposed to be 'above' politics. It is supposedly pointing
> towards a rational foundation of reconciling seeming opposites. Of late, I
> have seen nothing but oppositional bunkers being created and being fired
> from.
>
> And who are getting shot? The fucking messengers. The likes of Mr. Pirsig
> (!), dmb, Dan, Anthony and Horse (who is trying to protect the messengers
> and copping flack for it...and this has nothing to do with Horse
> [ultimately] paying the electricity bill I am sure...this is so low!).
>
> Imho, I think we are in a sorry, sad and shameful state of affairs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>