[MD] Fwd: Re: Static Patterns Rock!

[David Morey]

Hey DMB

Well never mind,  I don't want to make your brain bleed, I think you are trying to do the best you can with Pirsig's texts,  I can't convince you there is a problem to address,  never mind,  I will push off and pursue my ideas elsewhere. I honestly enjoy you calling me stupid, you know I've been privileged to speak to some really amazing intellectuals in my time,  but it seems like you must be the only really smart person I have ever debated with, wow can you work out what that must mean dude?

The thing is, if I am not playing a game but am in fact right, it might be an idea to read what I have said again, and try thinking a bit harder about it,  I know you can, a little light shines through now and again. You are a gas, seeya. 

All the best
David M

david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>David Morey said to DMB:
>...why is content so much better a word than pattern, what rules it out? Is there a better word for X? I have tried the split between DQ and SQ as pre-conceptual patterns and conceptual patterns,  you don't like that,  what about dynamic patterns versus static patterns? 
>
>
>dmb says:
>As I have already said over and over, you are misusing Pirsig's key terms, namely Dynamic Quality and static "patterns" of quality. Those are Pirsig's terms. We are talking their meaning in a Pirisg discussion group - and the title of this thread is "Static Patterns Rock". Dude, what the hell is wrong with your brain? You are being obnoxiously stupid about this point! 
>
>Why, of all the words in the English language, would you want to described Pirsig's DQ in terms of "patterns"? That is the worst possible choice. It could not be worse. As I keep saying over and over and over again, "Patterns" is exactly what DQ is not. 
>
>Seriously, are you daft? Are you playing some sick game? You're talking like you're a full-blown idiot and you then you act surprised by my objections to this contradictory drivel! You refuse to acknowledge these totally freaking obvious contradictions.
>
>There is static and dynamic. Just two things. But you have to describe the dynamic in terms of the static. That's just dumb, man. How can you fail to see that? How could anyone fail to see that?
>
>
> 		 	   		  
>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