[MD] Descriptions of Quality

Dan Glover daneglover at gmail.com
Sun Jul 8 12:04:08 PDT 2012 

Mark, I am sorry you are an idiot. But it isn't my fault. Piss up
someone else's leg and tell them it's raining.

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:58 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
> 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



-- 
http://www.danglover.com

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list