From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 28 2004 - 20:58:35 GMT
Scott, Steve, Chin all MOQers:
Scott said to Steve:
My view, which differs from the MOQ, is that DQ is never independent of SQ.
Rather, DQ and SQ always exist only insofar as they oppose each other as
they constitute each other, that is, they follow the form of contrdictory
identities. And so I reject the concept of "pure experience". All
experience is always a DQ/SQ opposition, which is best exemplified by our
experience of intellect.
dmb says:
Well, you don't really reject the concept of "pure experience" so much as
misunderstand it. And I'm fairly certain that you've misunderstood the
concept of contradictory identity, the nature of the static/Dynamic split
and just about everything else you get your hands on. Once again you have
imported a concept that only illuminates the MOQ and you have construed it
as a something opposed to it. Its not fair of me to say all that without at
least making a specific case, which I could certainly make, but this
constant confusion has sucked the gumption right out of me....
Scott said to Chin:
It is confusing, so don't worry if it's hard to grasp. The self changes, but
also does not change. If it didn't change, there would be no experience. If
it only changed, there would be no awareness. There must be continuity
during a change for there to be awareness of change. Now if we look to see
what stays the same during change, we won't find anything. It is the looking
that doesn't change. So the philosophical problem is: how does "looking" fit
into a world where everything changes?
dmb says:
Hard to grasp? I was going to write to you privately, Scott, but this one
was the clincher for me. When I saw you strike this deep-guy pose so
condescendingly, I knew it was time to bite my tongue no longer. What you
say is confusing NOT because its too deep or profound for Chin to grasp, but
because what you say is confusing. Its nonsense. Gibberish. You're
hopelessly confused and most of what you write is entirely misleading with
respect to the MOQ and the thinkers you bring to the table. And that's why
I'm not saying this privately. Its not that I want to hurt your feeling or
make you look bad in front of others. That's just an unforunate consequence
of my aim, which is to protect the readers. I honestly think it needs to be
said out loud, that a warning needs to be shouted to the roof tops! I'm
sincerely concerned that your nonsense is destructive and misleading and
that anyone who follows you is doomed to get lost.
I don't feel good about it, dear reader, but I think Scott doesn't know what
he's talking about and confusion is the most reasonable response to his
assertions.
Sincere regrets,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 29 2004 - 01:32:07 GMT