[MD] , openness,

[X Acto]

PS / Aside / Meta-point: (Start another thread if you want to respond here.)

Interesting that no-one else has responded to this 3 day old post from
David, one of 3 or 4 he posted recommending reads from "outside"
Pirsigland. The one I did respond to (also very positively) sparked
busy threads entirely about my jokey aside about a typo David pointed
out he had made in his mail - about value being beyond precise
definition of words. Now tell me MD (with only a couple of exceptions
I could name) is not trapped inside a cage of language. (You will.
Defensively. Angrily, ad-hominem attack is the best form of
defensively ..... go on, surprise me.)

Ian

In response to David Morey who had said:
> Good to be back after a long absence. Well on that subject,
> I suggested many years ago that dynamic quality could be
> more fully and better understood by thinking about how it
> relates to openness and immaterial possibilities that are
> somehow present to experience but absent as realised
> things or SQ. Well Terrence W Deacon has written the key text
> on this sort of thinking:

 
Ron:
The important idea to keep in mind is that value is limit and that is pretty much
what has been expressed to you with a few insults, I think ad-homeninem is not
a very precise word to use in the critique of your posts that Dave or Arlo made.
 
Be it that it was jokingly said, it was how it was said and continues to be said,
with the broad generalized implication that language is a "trap"  and I think we would all like
to know how one makes the rhetorical leap from "value" to "trap".

Also
 
I was having trouble making out just what was meany by:
 
"I suggested many years ago that dynamic quality could be
> more fully and better understood by thinking about how it
> relates to openness and immaterial possibilities that are
> somehow present to experience but absent as realised
> things or SQ. "
 
Which I have reduced to:
 
Dynamic Quality is best understood via empirical observations.
 
Concluding that explanations based on empirical observation have the most
meaning and the most value when they are the most precise to observation
the more accurate and precise they are, the closer they are to Dynamic
experience.
 
If the value of language lies in the explanation of empirical observation
Making the broad generalization that language is a trap tends to run
counter to your expressed intrests in reading about the better understanding of Dynamic
Quality.
 
Thus the criticism.
 
.
 
 
..