dmb said:
Arguments only ever persuade people who are persuadable by arguments.
Mary replied:
DMB! I LOVE THIS! Can I frame it? Print it out? Hang it on my wall? If
this is original to you, GENIUS.
dmb says:
I just plugged it into google and got zero hits. But that doesn't mean I'm
Matt said:
What additional condition is there for truth? Claim-X being true, in addition
to justified. But since justification is our only route to truth, it does in a
sense make justification sufficient: justification is _experientially_
sufficient for a claim of truth. But since new
Matt said:
... the reason there is always a distinction between truth and justification
is because of what I will now dub the Truth Fact: you might be justified in
thinking X, but X might not be true. Steve has endlessly reiterated this fact
about the experience of truth, and what neither
Ian said to Matt:
...when he [Harris] says he favours Correspondence Theory (of Truth) over
Pragmatism I interpret this two ways. (1) It's fact and truth he is
corresponding, not fact and reality, or truth and reality, or language and
reality. (See JC's note on conflating truth with reality,
Matt said to dmb:
Now you don't get to say I or Rorty (since Rorty would subscribe to both of the
above) abandon truth theories or epistemologies. Because I just gave you both.
...If you feel cheated, it would be unclear to me why, since Rorty's never
denied semantics as a discipline nor
Horse said to John:
...but when some on this list start complaining about the academic and more
technical side of philosophy and trying to make a bogeyman out of their work I
think it does become a problem. Whatever your views on the academy and how they
'philosophologise' (!) it's still a
Arlo said to Platt:
... I could, of course, try to dumb things down for just you, but given that
everyone else understands me just fine, I'll decline... If you can't
effortlessly understand what someone writes, maybe the problem is with YOU?
Nhhh... must be those big bad intellectuals...
Arlo said:
but I find very problematic the notion that patterns were arranged by some
external agent's bidding, rather than their own volitional responses to Dynamic
Quality. In this sense, nothing responds to DQ, things are merely moved around
like pieces on a chessboard by DQ's hand. We
Is this some kind of joke?
A guy named Teach Baloney with a savetherich email address writes a post in
favor of robot supremacy wherein humanity is a cancer.
I guess it's not quite funny enough to count as a joke. But it surely is absurd.
C'mon, be serious. Or at least sincere.
Date:
John said:
That's the problem with Quality in an academic matrix, and it's not a problem
with Quality, it's a problem with the academic matrix.
Arlo replied:
I think you are conflating Quality with the MOQ. Certainly, one cannot (nor
should try) to constrain Quality in an academic matrix.
Arlo said:
...No one, certainly not me, would say that Quality is something the academics
can smack their lips on like some bon-bon. But the MOQ IS an intellectual
pattern and as such is about expanding rationality, which is an intellectual
endeavor,.. The MOQ is about an expanded
Horse said to Platt:
Your Pirsig quote comes from that part of Lila's Child where you are supporting
Bo's (now) SOL idea and Pirsig disagrees with you about the MoQ being a SOM
document based on SOM reasoning: ... Pirsig's notes 129, 131 and 133 also
specifically disagree with Bo's idea
dmb says:
Because Jon is new, I think it's only fair to point out that Steve did not
answer the right questions. I mean, Jon asked what the moq says about truth and
how the moq avoids relativism but he answered as if Jon had asked what Rorty
says about those things.
Pirsig says, Value, the
dmb said:
... Jon asked what the moq says about truth and how the moq avoids relativism
but he answered as if Jon had asked what Rorty says about those things.
Steve replied:
Would you like to point out where I said something inconsistent with the MOQ?
...Can you explain what I said that is
Mary said to dmb:
...What I would say is that it occurs to me that there are basically two ways
you can approach the MoQ. Either you take a Western road to get there via
James and the Pragmatists or Empiricists; or you come at it from the Eastern
Buddhist perspective. Both are valid. It
Jon said:
I haven't followed the whole thread. But try to explain the connection with
James and Pragmatism. How is James related to the Eastern approach?
dmb says:
Pirsig identifies his MOQ with pragmatism in general and with James's
pragmatism and radical empiricism in particular. (Last
John said to Horse:
Despite your superior expertise, I think you're wrong. ... And all the
expertise in the world will not obviate this fundamental truth. So there.
dmb quotes Wiki:
An expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or
skill whose faculty for judging
Steve said to dmb:
Your answer that the MOQ subscribes to empiricism doesn't get to the issue of
relativism at all.
dmb says:
Sure it does. But I honestly don't know how I can explain this any clearer than
I already have. Laura Weed's explanations are probably better than mine. Read
her
Platt said:
The quotes from Wiki used here are challenged on their sites. In the case of
anti-intellectualism, its neutrality is disputed. One would think an honest
intellectual would include that caveat. But alas . . .
dmb says:
Yea, any Wikipedia article that touches on controversial
Mary said:
... and yes, DMB, I find James alternative lacking and incomplete.
dmb says:
Why? I mean, could you be more specific?
Mary said:
... And by the way, for DMB, and Ant (whom I know from way back), and Matt, and
Steve's benefit, there are those of us who have a great deal of
Ian said to Mary:
I actually agree with this [the MoQ has much greater explanatory power when the
Intellectual Level is viewed as SOM than when it is not I actually agree with
this] so I ask you a question. If we limit the intellectual level to this kind
of intellect ... where in the
Platt said:
Marx, the darling of many intellectuals past and present, sanctioned
totalitarianism: ...The haste by some here to defend Marx speaks volumes.
dmb says:
How does Platt respond to the charge of anti-intellectualism? He engages in a
little McCarthyism, a little anti-intellectual
Bo said:
The intellectual level is either SOM or a mental vessel that contains ideas,
concepts, modes of thinking with SOM one mode and the MOQ another, and such
SOM's MIND. And if mind prevails then the MOQ turns into a somish idealist
teaching. There is no compromise between these two
Steve gave us A Narrative of Moral Progress and said:
With regard to my metanarrative (where I paint a view of moral progress as
better taking into account the needs of more and more beings through the
expansion of the moral imagination through stories that help us see the other
as also your
Jon said:
The issues of political freedom, the respect for human rights, including
women's rights and civil rights did not emerge from such a world view as the
moq, and it is indeed alien to the recognition of such rights.
dmb says:
Well, the ideas about human rights and political freedom
Jon said:
Pirsig favors dynamic quality, just as the I Ching with its two fundamental
principles, favors yin, or the change principles Moq favors the dynamic
reality over the static. And this sabotages its rational element even though it
is often unseen.
dmb says:
Okay, now I'm
dmb says:
Wow! Nice work, Andre. You nailed it. In just a few short paragraphs, Buddha,
Northrop, James and Pirsig are all connected on the same essential point.
Thanks.
Andre:
Hi Marsha, not sure he was doing this. At least, this is not what 'legend'
says about his quest.
He was
Howdy MOQers:
It took about two minutes to realize that this critic is a right-wing crank.
Check out the difference between the Publisher's Weekly review and the praise
heaped upon him by the Washington Times, The Conservative Book Club and a
Chesterton fan over at the newspaper written for
Quality is the primary empirical reality of the world.
dmb says:
In that phrase, Quality refers to Dynamic Quality. The primary empirical
reality is the cutting edge of experience, that pre-intellectual awareness
that Northrop calls the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum and James calls
it too.
What's the name of this thread?
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.comwrote:
Quality is the primary empirical reality of the world.
dmb says:
In that phrase, Quality refers to Dynamic Quality. The primary empirical
reality
Bodvar said:
Need I spoon-feed you weak-interpreters? (*) In a ZAMM context Socrates
represents SOM's independence from the Arete past, here he is said to
represents the intellectual level's independence of its social origin (all
levels have their origin in the former level). Without
Mary:
On what basis do you make you claims? Sorry, but I just don't see any merit to
your objections or accusations.
Again, I don't see how it can make any sense to reject James against Pirsig,
especially since it was Pirsig who equated them. What this equation adds to the
MOQ is about a
Mary said:
The question was, what does the Intellectual Level value, not what values have
made the Intellectual Level possible. What you and Andre point to below refers
to the latter and not the former.
dmb says:
If the answers didn't address your question then I probably don't understand
Mary said:
John, I get a kick out of Hitchens. He's the only guy I know who'll show up on
Bill Maher with a drink in his hand in a clear glass. Everybody else hides
theirs in a coffee cup.
dmb quotes Sam Harris on Hitchens:
Credit goes to Christopher Hitchens for distilling, in a single
dmb said to Bo:
...Pirsig refers to Quality (DQ) and the pre-intellectual reality. You
repeatedly take this as a reference to social static patterns. Because they
evolved prior to intellect, you figure, social patterns are pre-intellectual.
Mary replies:
Dmb, I can't believe you just said
Okay, one more post.
Mary said:
We have always had intellectual freedom. It was intellectual freedom that came
up with gods, and kings, and then different gods, and then one god, reading and
writing, poetry, art, music, legal systems, politics, money, trade, etc. All
these changing ideas
Late Writings
Pragmatism (1907)
James first announced his commitment to pragmatism in a lecture at Berkeley in
1898, entitled “Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results.” Later sources
for Pragmatism were lectures at Wellesley College in 1905, and at the Lowell
Institute and Columbia
Mary said to dmb:
I can't find anywhere in Bo's comments where he equates the Social Level with
Dynamic Quality itself.
dmb says:
Huh? That's a confused version of what I said. Bo mistake is not EQUATING the
social level with DQ. His mistake is CONFUSING the social level with Arete. Bo
Craig said:
For Searle the Is-Ought gap is the same as the fact/value gap the
descriptive/evaluative gap.
Steve replied:
I'm not sure what he means by saying that they are the same. Can you point me
to his essay? I couldn't find it on the web anywhere.
dmb says:
Seriously? I think the
Mary asked:
What is the Intellectual Level, and specifically, what makes it different from
the Social Level?
Dave replied:
The first question we have all tried to answer since the discussion group
started years and years ago.
dmb says:
The distinction Pirsig makes is a modification of
Steve said:
I know what Pirsig says. I'm wonderring how his arguments stand up to arguments
that others have made. Aren't you also wonderring why, if these questions have
been so thoroughly dissolved, that people keep asking about them?
dmb says:
Well, that's just it Steve. I don't see
Howdy Moqers:
Here's a little bit of Wiki, just so you know what Jon is selling here.
Following Abraham Kuyper, and other, earlier Neo-Calvinists, Dooyeweerd
attempted to describe reality as a creation of God, which has its meaning from
God. This God-given meaning is displayed in all of the
Steve, Marsha:
Marsha said:
To recap why I think Buddhism cannot be used as an exception to the
Intellectual Level being SOM, I offer these to quotes that indicate that
Buddhism used logic and the scientific method for an objective study of 'Mind'.
dmb says:
Can SOM be equated with
Marsha said:
I wrote To recap why I think Buddhism cannot be used as an exception to the
Intellectual Level being SOM, I offer these to quotes that indicate that
Buddhism used logic and the scientific method for an objective study of
'Mind'. I DID NOT write that SOM equated to logic and the
Jon said to dmb:
... How do you define conservatives or theists as anti-intellectual, unless
there is some absolute intellectual claim you have. If so, show it or prove it.
That sounds like a biased faith based statement to me. What's intellectually
sound about it just because its in your
Steve said:
I'm pretty sure that RMP would see a difference between asserting X is true
and One ought to do X. There is a difference between saying DMB thinks this
distinction is meaningless and DMB should see this distinction as
meaningless.
dmb says:
This problem of trying to describe
Bo comments:
...Then the million Euro question is: What does SOM and Aretê translate into in
a MOQ context?
dmb says:
Well, I want to be more specific and just focus on how Arete translates into
the terms of the MOQ. If you just look at Pirsig's description it is obvious
that he's talking
Thanks, Andre. That's a nice way to put it. In some broad sense, we could say
that overcoming the blind spot to DQ in our culture would serve the cause of
feminism. I realize that sounds like some kind of joke, but I'm not kidding.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:43:21 +0200
From:
Andre said to Bo:
Your objection to the MOQ not being a static intellectual pattern of value
makes no sense at all. Your dismissal of 'thinking', your dismissal of
'feelings' as all being indications of a SOM Mind Reality are plain silly. ...
Your dismissal of the intellectual level as not
dmb quoted Pirsig:
This problem of trying to describe value in terms of substance has been the
problem of a smaller container trying to contain a larger one. Value is not a
subspecies of substance. [You can't get oughts from ises.] Substance is a
subspecies of value. When you reverse the
DMB said to Steve:
...Rorty dismisses epistemology because he defines the question in terms of
the failed answer. Matt finally saw what I meant. Ask him.
Steve:
I never read Matt agreeing with you that Rorty dismisses epistemology. In fact,
everything I have read him to say on this topic
dmb said:
Radical empiricism says ALL experiences can be counted as evidence for or
against our claims. It insists that all kinds of experience be accounted for in
our philosophies and says that anything beyond experience should not be
included in those accounts. This empiricism is so radical
Platt said:
...Since then, SOM has become an end in itself and is screwing everything
up, evident as today's socialist Greece goes down the tube with other European
countries blindly following the same morally-vacant SOM downward path.
dmb quotes:
Here is some actual Greek political history.
dmb said:
Notice that the pragmatists are not only rejecting SOM but also taking up those
two categories of experience. Primary and secondary are dynamic and static or
preconceptual and reflective. But Rorty rejected this distinction and that's
why he's wrong.
To understand why Rorty is wrong,
dmb says:
How would a radical empiricist test the claim that there is intelligent life
elsewhere? He'd say we can only speculate. Alien life, at this point, is beyond
human experience and so anything we say about it can only be educated
speculation. We can try to find some, and we are doing
Today, Steve said:
Again, that is just not what is normally meant by truth. You are of course free
to try to win over people to a new way of using an old word, but I think the
common sense notion of truth is worth keeping to keep track of what we used to
believe to be true that turned out to
Andre said to Marsha:
... and I am not the only one on this discuss who suggests that his pov is a
detriment to the MOQ. Even Mr. Pirsig has said so!!! ( Annotn. 132/133)
dmb says:
Right. This is the part that bothers me the most. We have the author on record
saying that he thinks Bodvar
Steve said:
I personally find it absurd to think that, for example, the assertion the
earth is roundish was MADE true for a particular person when that person was
able to ride that truth to successful action while the earth is flat was at
that time still true for anyone who was able to cash
Andre said to Marsha:
... I care about the MOQ and about Mr. Pirsig's accomplishments.
Marsha replied:
The known is an ever-changing, interrelated, impermanent, relative static
pattern of value. I see no reason to be too concerned with something that
will, even for you, be changing and is
Steve said:
This is not to say that radical empiricism may not do anything extra for you in
terms of metaphysics, it is just that it doesn't do anything for you in terms
epistemology that we can't have in other ways.
dmb says:
Well, people like me and Sam Harris disagree. I think Rortyism
Steve said:
It isn't that I don't understand what James is saying. I just disagree with
him. As for Pirsig, I am not convinced that he ought to be read as subscribing
to the so-called pragmatic theory of truth. It is one thing to subscribe to
fallibism--to assert that all beliefs ought to be
Pirsig said to Platt and Bo:
Therefore to say that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is as useful as saying
that the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It doesn't tell us
anything about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it doesn't tell us
anything about the essence of the MOQ.
Friday morning, Steve said:
... to follow DMB in his Jamesian true for you false for me relativistic
notion of truth where beliefs are made true by verifying them is not what
anyone but Jamesians and post-modernists normally mean by true.
Later that same Friday, Steve said:
Ah, here we go.
John said:
... For very, very many people, the whole GOD thing is a huge billboard
pointing them in a Quality direction. These people are your most primitive
types, admittedly. M. Scott Peck illustrates them as the criminals and police.
The drunkard and reformer. Often, from a life of pure
Mary said:
On one side are arrayed the forces of DMB, Horse, Andre, Steve and others who
are the equivalent of MoQ Fundamentalists. ...On the other side are arrayed the
forces of Bo, Marsha, myself, and Platt, who take a more, dare I say, liberal
interpretation.
dmb says:
A more liberal
John said:
More troublesome is the statement it is evil to put the higher levels in the
service of a lower one. Is it really evil for a man to engage intellectually
so that he can land a good academic position and feed his wife and kids?
Because if so, you've got some explaining to do to
Hey Doc!
Glad to hear it's finished and I can't wait to see what you've done with it. I
imagine it would take some pretty fancy editing techniques to hide the fact
that I was jet-lagged, bird-flued and outta my mind with stage fright. Maybe if
you employed the services of George Lucas's
Matt said:
Heidegger suggested that Newton's laws were neither true nor false before
Newton dreamed them up. Rorty said this about it in 2000: I once tried to
defend Heidegger's audacity, but my defense went over like a lead balloon. So
I have resigned myself to intuiting, like everybody
Ant said to dmb:
Ron DiSanto seems very fair minded AND knowledgable regarding the drawbacks and
advantages of religious traditions. Moreover, his understanding of Pirsig's
work in the wider context is probably better than Pirsig's and definitely
better than mine so you couldn't have got
Steve said:
... it always has been a semantic issue as far as I am concerned while DMB has
wanted to make it an epistemological issue. He wants to say that since whatever
we feel justified in believing (...) we will of course call true, then truth is
just that--justified belief.
dmb says:
Steve said:
While there are some interesting similarities between Pirsig and James, at some
point DMB will have to put his secularism up against James's The Will to
Believe and see what wins. I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on the
article as a secularist and a Jamesian.
dmb says:
Steve said:
... I don't see any evidence that Pirsig followed James any further than
saying that the true is a species of the good in subscribing to the so-called
pragmatic theory of truth.
dmb says:
What the MOQ adds to James' pragmatism and radical empiricism is the idea that
the primal
Steve said to Ian:
If you aren't hearing it from DMB, then you just haven't been listening. Based
on what you have said in your previous post, you and DMB strongly disagree
about truth. For example, if you think that quote I made up could conceivably
have come from RMP, then you and DMB have
Matt said:
.., if justification is our only route to truth, then it does seem an add-on to
then say it is justified _and_ true. Call the endorsing use the use of truth
from the first-person standpoint. .. Another use of true, which is what Steve
wants to emphasize is different and needed--we
Ian said to Steve:
No, I think I do get DMB, he said exactly what I said he'd say ... ie he does
NOT say truth is whatever we feel justified in believing. His emphasis not
mine.
Steve said:
DMB of course disagrees. ... Everything he says about truth ought to be said
about justification
Andre quoted Pirsig:
'Later Phaedrus felt that three-termed realities are rather unwieldly ( low
quality) and rare in metaphysics, and tries to collapse them into one. He saw
that if you collapsed them into the object you got a materialist metaphysics.
If you collapsed them into the subject,
James
In 1890, William James, agreeing there were two fundamental kinds of knowledge,
and adopting Grote's terminology, further developed the distinctions made by
Grote and Helmholtz:I am acquainted with many people and things, which I know
very little about, except their presence in the
Steve replied to Marsha:
The problem for DMB of course is that he wants to support this theory of truth
but deny the relativism it entails. After years of attacking Rorty for being a
relativist, DMB now claims that Rorty wasn't audacious enough in his
relativism because Rorty didn't have the
Arlo said (repeatedly):
.., if all intellectual patterns are SOM, what exactly was Pirsig lamenting in
ZMM? If intellect can be nothing else but SOM, then what's the beef with
Aristotle? And those Sophists, they were peddling SOM too.
... I think that calling intellect nothing but SOM
:
I don't know what you mean. Not even sure what the topic is. Are you talking
about know-how or knowledge by acquaintance or what?
On May 11, 2010, at 1:49 PM, david buchanan wrote:
James
In 1890, William James, agreeing there were two fundamental kinds of
knowledge, and adopting
Matt said:
I remember reading a transcript of a lecture Pirsig gave once where (if memory
serves) he used Bertrand Russell's distinction between knowledge by appearance
and knowledge by description to catch hold of the same thing.
dmb says:
As my wiki tweaky shows, the distinction Russell
Matt said to Steve:
I think if we follow the Turner letter definition of intellectual patterns as
manipulation of symbols, then that's pretty much coextensive with propositional
knowing-that. And that, I think, would mean that bio and social are
know-how--you can't articulate what you are
Arlo asked Marsha:
Again, if ALL intellectual patterns are SOM, there is no conflict in ZMM as
both the Sophists and Aristotle were peddling the same SOM-Intellect.
Marsha replied:
What?
dmb says:
If you equate SOM and intellect, you also have to say Pirsig's book is
pointless. He
Marsha asked dmb:
On what basis does your I think of agreement with Arlo exist? By mistaken
identity!
dmb says:
If you think I cannot agree without basing it on SOM, then you are one
seriously mixed up cat.
Now anyone who uses a personal pronoun is committed to the notion that reality
is
Arlo said to Marsh cat:
Again, if this is the case... if ALL intellect is SOM by definition... then
where is the conflict in ZMM between the Sophists and Aristotle? BOTH were
peddling SOM.
dmb says:
Yea, it's a great story. Descartes created a ridiculous fictional self and
Aristotle was the
When that happens to me, I find the second version is usually about half as
long and twice as good. The effort pays for itself even if the product
disappears.
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 19:57:15 -0700
From: bypryordes...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Teach your
of
intellectual vandalism. Barbarians!
Thanks Dave.
Marsha
On May 12, 2010, at 12:01 AM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha asked dmb:
On what basis does your I think of agreement with Arlo exist? By
mistaken identity!
dmb says:
If you think I cannot
Matt said:
For fuckheads who like Rorty and beavers and think that Rorty has a bias
towards language over non-linguistic experience, I present this passage talking
about the distinction between propositional knowing-that and nonlinguistic
know-how (with beavers):
dmb says:
I think Rorty has
Steve said to dmb:
You seem to have an unusual notion of what relativism with respect to truth is.
...For a Pirsigian and for a Jamesian as well as for a Rortian, what actually
is true is not a coherent part of the vocabulary, so the question of reativism
with respect to truth just doesn't
Steve said to dmb:
... Can you please, please, please define relativism with respect to truth, so
I can know what you mean when you say (pace Ant) that Pirsig can't rightly be
called a relativist with respect to truth?
dmb says:
Pragmatic truth is empirical. I would have thought it would
dmb says:
Instead of concepts shaping what's given to the senses, concepts are taken
from the stream of experience they way one would take a bucket of water from
a river. The bucket of water does not get in the way of the river. It does not
represent the river or correspond to the river. It's
Steve said to dmb:
As is becoming typical, instead of responding to my objections to the analogy,
you post a bunch of quotes... dmb Quoted Dewey:
The history of the theory of knowledge or epistemology would have been very
different if instead of the word 'data' or 'givens', it had happened to
All interested MOQers:
Several threads are combined here. I think they were converging on their own
anyway, so hopefully there is something in it for just about everybody.
Arlo said:
The intellectual patterns emerging from the Sophists were not SOM. They were
clearly something better. And
Steve said:
...But the Pirsig quote wasn't about that. It was about objectivity as
intersubjectivity. Subjectivity is just know-how.
dmb says:
There are places where Rorty and Pirsig agree, but those positions are held by
lots and lots of people. But it is way too much of a stretch to put
Bodvar said:
I knocked down DMB's argument (of various philosophers' INTELLECTUAL criticism
of SOM excludes the SOL) and he shut up.
dmb says:
You are very much mistaken to interpret my silence as your victory. I agree
with Andre in thinking you are totally lost in your own interpretation
Marsha wondered if this definition is too plain-spoken:
rel·a·tiv·ism n. Philosophy. A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics,
that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to
the persons or groups holding them.
dmb says:
If we compare that definition
Marsha said to dmb:
Are you going to use wiki as a source for your thesis?
dmb says:
No. And you're such a sweet generous soul for asking. Your concern for my
welfare is so touching that I think I might cry. You love me, don't you? Tell
me, is it motherly or sisterly or do I have a shot at
I'm gonna listen to it again. Damn! I thought I was an enthusiast but the
guests really have me pumped up now. Did I hear that right? The greatest
American philosopher ever? Is that what he said?
I'd like the future of philosophy to revolve around one crucial question for
the next few
Matt said:
Better than rubberband even is Quine's self as a web of belief. Web is nice
because if we visualize life as instead of a river, but an open space of air
with a nice breeze.
dmb says:
The of idea of a web of belief comes out of the structuralist movement. It's
based on the insight
Marsha said:
You missed where I mentioned that within the MoQ, conceptions of truth
(patterns) are relative to a hierarchical level.
dmb says:
Yea, I was trying to be polite, so I let it go. You don't want to know what I
think of that idea.
1 - 100 of 2744 matches
Mail list logo
