[MD] First Division 2.0

[MarshaV]

On Feb 29, 2012, at 6:37 AM, David Harding wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>> I can certainly certainly point to what I speak from. I suppose I
>> could call these assumptions, but they come from how I see reality.
>> Therefore a main assumption I use is that my reality is real. These
>> are not assumptions any more than breathing is an assumption.
>> Assumptions, in my opinion, relate to the underpinning of a truth
>> which is created out of a set of provisional axioms, which are used to
>> base a logical argument on. We can go that route, but in that case,
>> we must both agree that such assumptions do not need any proof. For
>> that is the nature of assumptions.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whew. This latest post of yours almost killed me by 'death by too much philosophy'. I've gotten there finally though..
> 
> How can we speak from the perspective of DQ, when DQ isn't anything? If DQ isn't anything there is no 'we' to speak.  This is why your claim that you can speak from the perspective of DQ, destroys DQ. It pollutes that which cannot be defined with the language and definitions of Mark.  
> 
> Doug Reneselle has a website called quantonics.com (http://Quantonics.com) . There he proposes changing how we write words from our new 'MOQ - DQ' perspective.  According to Doug in reality everything is 'intermingled' with DQ so our new language should reflect this. This sounds right up your alley.  Perhaps this is something you might be interested in?  Pirsig has written to Doug requesting that he call his new approach something different - other than the MOQ - because this is not what the MOQ claims. It destroys the MOQ.
> 


snip… 


David, great post!!!    - Marsha