[MD] Fwd: Re: Static Patterns Rock!

[david buchanan]

DMB said to David Morey:
You refuse to deal with the evidence honestly and in fact you barely even acknowledge the evidence. I don't know where you got the idea that "undifferentiated" experience means blankness or white noise or a lack of content but that's wrong and that's what has you so confused. If you'd LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE you'd see that nobody says that. .. When you abandon your misinterpretation of "undifferentiated" and realize that it simply means "unconceptualized" - as I've pointed out about ten different times - your objections will immediately evaporate.

DM said to dmb: 
...I am only interested in challenging what I see as poor definitions not consistently applied and with unrealised implications. If you could overcome my concerns adequately we could move closer to the truth or a better thought out MOQ and we would all be winners... Sorry if I can't read all your quotes and find answers to all the problems I am raising as you claim you do,  but it seems rude and lazy to expect me to do that...  I can't see any benefit in me setting out how I understand what James,  Pirsig,  Northrop are saying because I am arguing that what they appear to be saying in certain specific ways is wrong or confusing, it seems to me that the people who disagree with me should be able to show me why I am wrong or how I can resolve my concerns...



dmb says:
Let me get this straight.
You are challenging what you see as poor definitions of DQ and sq in the MOQ.
But you also think that dozens of quotes on the nature of DQ and sq does not adequately speak to that challenge.
That is a profoundly stupid thing to say, David. How would it be possible to offer a better answer? If a mountain of textual evidence doesn't answer your objections, then what would? If you're not talking about the static and Dynamic as Pirsig and James construe it, then what are talking about? If you're not talking about Pirsig's central ideas, then why are you using his terms? And if you're using his terms and asking about his terms, why would you refuse to look at what he says about them? That is just the stupidest thing I've ever heard. 

And, for Pete's sake, you demand answers and then claim it's lazy and rude of me to expect that you'll read those answers?! That's is also outrageously stupid. It is obnoxiously and aggressively idiotic. This isn't a philosophical disagreement or a dispute about interpretations. It's just unbelievably dumb. If you think your completely unsupported and contradictory nonsense is in any way comparable to a mountain of textual evidence, then you are not just incompetent, you're downright delusional.  

Once again, in MOQ discuss, I find myself arguing with a crazy person.

Sigh.