[MD] desires

[Margaret Warren]

hey...just dropping in on this post - have caught fragments...
someone probably already said this - if so, sorry for the repeat. 

seems to me that 'static' is what is in the mind...
we hold onto the 'ideas' of static patterns...
i.e. the traditional family structure. 

23 yr olds are now accustomed to the fact that everyone has
strange family units: 2 dads, 2 moms, 1 mom - 1 step mom - halfway dad -
1 dad - an aunt and a grandfather, kids can't blame their 
broken homes as an excuse for failing or succeeding -

but socially, western culture clings to the myth of the
1 dad - 1 mom structure...that's static; 
what is actually 'happening' socially, biologically, intellectually
is ever-changing....the static idea is when it gets 'stuck' in
our mind...

even in the 'definitions' attempting to be ironed out on this
group. 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Mary
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 10:33 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org; marysonthego at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [MD] desires

Hi Dmb,

[dmb]
Never-changing" is the only logical alternative to Marsha's "ever-changing"?

You cannot be serious. Why are there no options between ever and never? Of
all the false dilemmas I've ever seen, this one takes the cake. I'll bet
there is an official latin name for that particular form of error but the
plain term "bogus" will do just fine.

I'm really kind of stunned at how stupid this is getting...

[Mary]
Ditto, Dave, Ditto.

Hang in there, Dave.  As for the dilemma?   Your view of the change thing?

Reminds me of being a little bit pregnant.


Best,
Mary

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:17 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> dmb said:
> The problem with this complaint is that nobody said that static patterns
are never-changing or permanent...
>
> Mary replied:
>
> ... In an attempt to understand why Marsha's statement should be attacked
I asked the obvious question, which is, that if you don't believe SPOVs are
ever-changing, then that must mean you think they are unchanging.  ...given
the vociferous objections to Marsha's statement that SPOVs are
"ever-changing", that is the only logical alternative for people opposed to
Marsha.
>
> dmb says:
> "Never-changing" is the only logical alternative to Marsha's
"ever-changing"?
>
> You cannot be serious. Why are there no options between ever and never? Of
all the false dilemmas I've ever seen, this one takes the cake. I'll bet
there is an official latin name for that particular form of error but the
plain term "bogus" will do just fine.
>
> The reason Marsha's statement so richly deserves to be refuted is that it
defies the english language and the MOQ's first distinction. The term
"ever-changing" is a good description of Dynamic Quality. That's exactly how
Pirsig characterizes the everything that is NOT static quality. Marsha's
statement could hardly be more wrong. It blurs and confuses the first and
most basic line drawn.
>
> I'm really kind of stunned at how stupid this is getting. I'm just gonna
get back to work before I say anything that's deeply regrettable.
>
> Best of luck,
>
>
>
> 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
>
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