[MD] Descriptions of Quality

[118]

Hi Dan,
I guess I find it difficult to understand what it is that you have a
problem with in terms of what I write.  I am more than happy to address any
issue that you may have, but I find it difficult to know what those are.
 If what I present is not consistent with Lila or ZAMM then please tell me
why.  Sometimes I find it difficult to put down in words what I am trying
to say.  I can tailor my words to meet your expectations so long as I know
what those are.

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Mark:
Fair enough.

>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> >
> > 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.
>

How do you mean it would take too long to explain?  What does that mean?
 Perhaps you are too busy, that I can understand.  I would suggest you read
the books as a philosopher.  The lack of commonality seems to come from
your not understanding what I am presenting.  I do understand what you are
saying, and I believe it is somewhat inconsistent in philosophical terms.

>
> >
> > 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.
>

What Pirsig wrote was as a result of his total immersion in Quality.  The
metaphysics of Quality is about Quality.  It is a description of Quality.
 There is more than one way to describe it and remain consistent with the
books that Pirsig has written.  If you believe I make faux pas with MoQ,
then tell me where.  It is somewhat alarming that you keep saying this but
do not present examples.  I have come to believe that you just have a knee
jerk reaction to anything I write.  This is a discussion of MoQ.  Do I not
have a right to discuss it without you complaining about the way in which I
discuss it?  I point out inconsistencies in what you present in order to
drive a discussion, but you do not seem to be in the spirit of any
discussion about those.  Perhaps my questions are too tough for you.  At
least give it your best answering them if you are going to respond to me.

>
> 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.
>

I have read your book, Dan.  Because of this book I expect you to rise to
the occasion and discuss MoQ.  This discussion may be one
of differing opinions.  That is the way philosophy works.  That is why it
is called a discussion, and not a rally.  I have been discussing Quality
since 1974, and so what?  You are a late comer to this party, and you do
not like philosophy to boot.  I have pointed out many inconsistencies that
you do not try to defend.  C'mon, put on your thinking cap.  I can only
show you things if you open your eyes to see them.

>
> >
> > 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 are supposed to explain what you meant by ideas before matter.  The way
you present it, it does not make any sense.  Ideas come from our brains,
they do not create our brains.  Ideas build on themselves, that is what is
meant by the ghost of reason.  Surely you can understand that.  Ideas such
as gravity are ghosts.  They have nothing supporting them.  They are
fabrications of the mind, just like Quality.  This does not mean we cannot
run with then, for this ability for static quality is one of the great
achievements of Man.  We create static quality like a bird creates a song.
 It is a human expression.  We shine with ideas like the sun gives off
sunlight.  We are able to build things and discuss over the computer
because of these ideas.  We have created a very complicated world just with
our brains.  DQ pales in comparison.

>
> 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.
>

You mean leave you alone?  Sorry, I can not do that because I believe in
MoQ, and you sometimes make a mess out of it.

>
> 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.
>

I'm sorry, Dan, but when you address "everyone", you are inviting that
"everyone" to respond.  So it DOES mean that anyone can intrude.  Besides,
you have been around long enough to know how this forum works.  I simply
cannot protect you there.

>
> 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.
>

If I do not ask the question, then there is a lot of misinformation going
out which is left unchecked.  Surely you can appreciate that MoQ discussion
has some checks and balances.  You cannot simply make a false statement and
expect it to stand.  Your discussion with David is full of misguided
statements when it comes to MoQ.  I did my best to stay out, but it was
getting very irritating.  So either support your statements or respond that
you do not know.  I am fine with either.  This discussion seems to become
too much of an ego and ownership mess.  You do not own MoQ anymore than I
do.  If you can't stand the heat then you should not be in this forum.

>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan
>

No, Dan, thank you.

Mark

>
> http://www.danglover.com
> 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
>