Re: MD Coherence and MOQ levels. part 2

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sat Jun 12 2004 - 21:15:02 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD Objectivism and the MOQ III"

    Mark said more than once:
     I feel my view ties things together neatly, elegantly and with great economy

    of explanation.
    dmb's refusal to engage with the ideas expressed in my initial post on this
    Topic, and then to avoid these issues further by misleading the Focus group
    is totally unacceptable in my view. I look forward to hearing from you dmb.
    Thank you.

    dmb replies:
    I guess we'll just have to disagree because I find your explanations to be
    almost entirely incoherent and honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.
    I don't even know what you mean by "coherence". So its not that I WILL NOT
    engage, it is that I CANNOT engage. I don't see how, for example, DQ and the
    event stream has anything to do with the static levels. The only way such an
    approach could possbily make any sense would be in an assertion of what the static
    levels ARE NOT.

    Mark 12-6-04: Hello again dmb, It all begins with the saying, 'sweet spot.'
    That's it right there.
    What the hell do people mean by the sweet spot?
     
    And the one of the main reasons that I believe you were not really even
    responding to my points is that you criticized one of Pirsig's metapors for being
    unPirsigian. You attacked the idea as if it were mine, even though the Pirsig
    quote that contained the metaphor was included in the post to which you were
    supposedly responding. This shows careless reading at best. In fact, you've
    siezed upon my least important point a little joke about Kate Beckinsale and left
    the main ideas untouched. And it hardly seems fair that I should have to read
    your unrelated essay while you apparently won't even take the time to properly
    read what I post on the elected topic.

    Mark 12-6-04: I apologise for any problems i have been responsible for. I
    have tried to get it across on many occasions that i wish for people who feel i
    am being evasive to grab my collar and insist that i answer. I don't ever try
    to be evasive, but sometimes this may appear to be the case. That's why i tell
    people to tackle me! I WANT the opportunity to respond.
    If i have evaded any points you have every right to insist they are
    addressed.
    I've just had one hell of a time elsewhere with a particularly evasive
    character and it is a very low Quality experience.
    Ignoring people is one shitty way for a Human to behave. It is so demeaning
    for one Human being to ignore the value of another.
     
    If there is some reason you wish me to understand your ideas about
    "coherence", then you'll have to give me something more than a homework assignment.

    Mark 12-6-04: This isn't school time. You're free to explore those ideas you
    find to be of value.
     
    Honestly. I really don't know what you're talking about. I mean, I don't even
    know what the topic is. That's the level of incoherence I find in your posts.
    Is there even a Lila quote that uses the word as you mean it?
     
    Good luck,
    dmb

    Mark 12-6-04: Coherence may be a small advance from Lila. In a nut shell,
    coherence may be used to explain what is said in ZMM regarding the relationship
    between people, their ideas, culture and environment. I do not believe this has
    been possible before?
    One obvious example is the relationship between a mechanic and a motorcycle.
    The term sweet spot indicates the best state of the motorcycle. This state is
    arrived when a mechanic performs good work and has a 'feel' for the work and
    the intellectual patterns which understand how a cycle works.
    Taken as a system of patterns, it may be said that all these patterns move
    towards one sweet spot. That state is coherence in the event stream.
    Another way of viewing this is to take the notion of tension from Zen in the
    art of archery and describe coherence as tension between patterns of static
    quality.
    By now you may be beginning to see that coherence allows us to speak of DQ
    and SQ as ONE process. No more separation. Now we can speak of ONE process with
    two aspects united towards increasing coherence.

    All the best,
    Mark

    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 : Sat Jun 12 2004 - 21:30:36 BST