[MD] Plato's Good

[Andre Broersen]

John to dmb:

Heh, and y'all accuse MARSHA of being slippery?  Sheesh!

dmb said:

This passage says quite a lot about the distinction between DQ and sq, between direct experience and intellectual abstractions. Please noticed that DQ remains undefined within and yet the MOQ's distinctions, concepts, definitions, ideas, etc. all arranged around that mystic focal point. About the focal point itself, we don't say much except in terms of what DQ ain't.

To which John responded with:
I believe that is a great problem with this list. The focus on negativity.

Andre:
What a pack of wirdos you guys are! First we have Mark saying that nobody can have Quality. That Quality rises above everything else...because it is undefined...beyong definition.

And now we have John arguing that the bulk of LILA, i.e from, lets say Chapter Eight is all 'negativity'. That is, from the time when Phaedrus suggested that it is better to talk about what ain't DQ ...in terms of developing some stability, order and preservation, in other words developing a metaphysics...he turned 'to the static patterns themselves'.

BECAUSE the MOQ IS a STATIC PATTERN OF INTELLECTUAL VALUE. Now John, what you are saying is that the MOQ is all negativity...because it is exactly what DQ ain't.

It reminds me of analogies with Marsha who sees sq as nothing but empty, conventional, waste of time illusory patterns about which we should not concern ourselves. Put Mark in there with his unreacheable conception of Quality and we have a trinity here: Mark, John and Marsha...Peter, Paul and Mary.

And I mean the biblical ones.

Boy what a mess you guys make of things.