[MD] Fwd: Re: Static Patterns Rock!

[MarshaV]

dmb,

All the text you have presented is analogy as you know:  "Everything is an analogy."    You've given no reason or proof that establishes the mountain of text as evidence for any argument in particular.   You stating that the evidence is mounting doesn't make it mount to support your case.  I have not identified you as someone who has an understanding of the MoQ that is deeper than the ink on the page.  The only conclusion one could make from this pile of text is that words were written by various writers on various points.  For instance, how do interpret this quote supporting your case:

"Non-dualism was well established in the two strands that wove into Zen: Buddhism and Taoism. Buddhists distinguished between dualistic knowledge—(‘‘bifurcated knowing’’)—and non-dual knowledge (‘‘springing-up knowing’’). So, too, dualistic perception— (‘‘with bifurcated thought construction’’)—was contrasted with non-dual perception—(‘‘without bifurcated thought construction’’). And as for Taoism, Chuang Tzu claimed nondualism—‘‘when ‘self’ and ‘other’ lose their contrareity,’’—to be ‘‘the very essence of Tao’’ (Loy, 1998, p. 34)"


Marsha




> On Oct 14, 2013, at 6:26 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy said to dmb,
> You didn't offer a mountain of textual evidence, you presented a mountain of text.
> 
> 
> dmb simply repeats what he already said:   
> 
> 
> The problem is that you cannot read this evidence for yourself. You do not understand how the evidence counts as a responsible answer because you don't know how to read the quotes. That's why you dismiss all the evidence. This explains why you have appeared to be so evasive and willfully ignorant. So, what is it that kept you from asking about the meaning of the evidence? Pride? I mean, don't you think that a sincere inquiry would lead you to focus on the evidence, to ask questions, venture an interpretation, try to see the connection between my claims and the evidence that I use to support those claims? What good do you think will come of it if you ignore all the answers and just keep asking the same question over and over again? In effect, you're refusing to deal with the answers while demanding still more answers. It's pretty outrageous behaviour.  You keep saying that the quotes I give "in no way answer the issues" but you never say WHY. It's just some vaguely insulting dismissal, as if the selection and presentation of relevant evidence is somehow not good enough but, dude, that is the gold standard. This is how scholarship works in general and that's how debates are won. If anything, you should be grateful. It doesn't really even matter what your questions and objections are because the evidence is so abundant that it should paint a clear picture of every operative term you asked about. If you need help understanding the evidence, then ask for it. But don't pretend that evidence is not evidence. Don't pretend you can improve the MOQ before you even understand it. Both attitudes are completely ridiculous and childish. You might think this is just silly abuse, but I'm totally sincere and I think it's a real and valid criticism. Intellectually speaking, to dance around the evidence like that is very sleazy and contemptible. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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