[MD] Descriptions of Quality

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:13 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Helllo Anyone interested in Quality,
>>

>>
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Me thinks thou doth make light of dark matters, good knight. Ideas of
>>
>> ideas about ideas pertaining to ideas come before ideas, do they not?
>>
>> I challenge thee to deny this. Be thee full of care lest I smite thy
>>
>> grin from the grin that thou grinnist so grinnily.
>>
>
> Yes, the ideas of ideas are a paradox that MoQ seeks to dispel.  It is like
> thinking about thinking.  As you know, there is a way out of this through
> MoQ.  Me?  I am smiling all the way.

Dan:
I was having a bit of fun with your comment, Mark, and championing
Ant's witty response to it.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>> We are having a discussion here about the MOQ, not whatever it is you
>> are talking about. Unless you have something pertinent to add, please
>> refrain from disrupting it.
>> Thank you,
>> Dan
>
>
> My apologies Dan.  You addressed your post to me and others so I had a
> comment.  I am still not sure what you mean by "discussing the MoQ".  You
> never responded to the appropriate means by which to discuss the MoQ.  It
> just seems that you do not like what I write and then say it is not "the
> MoQ".  Yet you never explain why.

Dan:
It would take too long to explain. I've repeatedly suggested you read
the books so we have some commonality as a foundation to a discussion.
As it is, we do not.

>
> The MoQ is a description of Quality in metaphysical terms.  I believe I was
> discussing the MoQ.  My comments were directed to some
> fundamental misunderstandings that you have about the MoQ.  I realize that
> you do not care much for philosophy but often you seem to forget that this
> is all about Quality.

Dan:
This discussion group is dedicated to the work of Robert Pirsig and in
particular Lila. You enjoy throwing around the term Quality as if it
is some sort of panacea for all the faux pas you make in regard to the
MOQ. It isn't.

I may have some fundamental misunderstandings about the MOQ. That is
quite possible.

However!

I've also put together a book about it and spent quite a number of
years collecting, reading, and interpreting many and diverse writings
regarding the MOQ as well as participating in this discussion group
since 1998. So if you are going to point out the fundamental
misunderstandings I have, you're going to have your work cut out for
you, my friend. And so far, you haven't showed me anything.

>
> The idea of matter came before what we now agree on to call matter.  This
> does not mean that what was used to created the idea of matter did not
> exist, for an idea must come from somewhere.  That is all I was trying to
> point out.  It sound to me like you are saying that ideas create physical
> reality.  If I bump into a tree at night, this bump happens before I create
> an idea of what happened.  Ideas are static, but they come from the dynamic.

Dan:
Again, a little reading would probably clear this up for you. The
ongoing discussion I am attempting to have with David Harding has a
lot of bearing on this. Rather than interrupting it with stuff like
this:

I appreciate what Dan writes, but would it not be more correct to say
that "ideas come before the idea of matter"?

I should think you would do a little thinking or a little reading
before posting. Ideas come before ideas? Come on, Mark. How I am
supposed to respond to this?

You and Marsha seem content having discussions about whatever it is
that interests you... why can't you two remain out of our discussion?
I realized David Harding invoked Marsha's name and I expected her to
make some kind of uncalled-for comment. But so far as I know, no one
rattled your chain.

As I have explained in the past, the reason I put 'Hello everyone' at
the outset of my posts is that I realize there are many people reading
these posts both now and in the future and I like to remind myself of
that while writing. It doesn't mean everyone is welcome to intrude on
the discussion with inane babble.

If you have something pertinent to add to the discussion, then by all
means do it. Otherwise, read and learn. Or not. But there is no need
to try and lead the discussion astray.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com