[MD] Fwd: Re: Static Patterns Rock!

[David Morey]

Andre said: No David. You're way off the mark.
'It wasn't any particular esthtician who produced this reaction in him. 
It was all of them. It wasn't any particular point of view that outraged 
him so much as the idea that Quality should be subordinated to /any/ 
point of view. The intellectual process was forcing Quality into its 
servitude, prostituting it. I think that was the source of his 
anger'(ZMM, p 207).

DM: Yes the intellectual views of SOM stop us seeing what quality really is,  in the MOQ there is no such problem,  I have no idea what you think you are challenging in what I said.

Andre: I get the distinct feeling that you fully realize what you are doing 
David, and you are doing it for ego-tripping, self-centered reasons, 
whatever these are.

DM: That is unfortunate for your feelings as they are horribly wrong, yes I know what I am doing,  I am trying to iron out a few issues in the definitions of DQ and SQ being discussed on this forum, if someone could iron them out for me I would be very grateful,  but alas only Horse has been able to offer any help so far,  have I mistaken this for a philosophy forum by mistake? I have no hidden motives or agendas, if I see an argument as poor I say so,  if good then I say so, if that upsets people who think their arguments are sound so be it, maybe they are right,  if so they just need to set out their reasons and I will set out mine. All this amateur psychoanalysis I find embarrassing. 

Bloody hell: pre-cultural sq?...cultural sq Biological sq and pre-biological sq?? Inorganic sq and pre-inorganic sq??? DQ and pre-DQ???

DM: yes I call this exploration of alternative ways to distinguish between DQ,  biological SQ and cultural SQ philosophy, are you on the wrong forum or am I,  are we just meant to sit around read Pirsig,  give a round of applause,  pat each other on the back and never think for ourselves?



Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

>David M to Horse:
>I am OK to drop pre-conceptual and replace it with pre-cultural SQ, and 
>cultural-SQ, so that all SQ is conceptual but the distinction I have 
>pointed out is seen as valid, could make the split biological SQ versus 
>intellectual SQ. So I would see biological SQ as having evolved 
>naturally, is more given, is less open to change, and intellectual SQ as 
>more open and can change and develop culturally. Would you agree?
>
>Andre:
>No David. You're way off the mark.
>'It wasn't any particular esthtician who produced this reaction in him. 
>It was all of them. It wasn't any particular point of view that outraged 
>him so much as the idea that Quality should be subordinated to /any/ 
>point of view. The intellectual process was forcing Quality into its 
>servitude, prostituting it. I think that was the source of his 
>anger'(ZMM, p 207).
>
>I get the distinct feeling that you fully realize what you are doing 
>David, and you are doing it for ego-tripping, self-centered reasons, 
>whatever these are.
>
>Bloody hell: pre-cultural sq?...cultural sq Biological sq and 
>pre-biological sq?? Inorganic sq and pre-inorganic sq??? DQ and pre-DQ????
>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