You sound like a priest chastising a novice because he does not know the same nonsense that he does. If you can't answer simple question about your text then maybe it is time for you to ask yourself of your words are anything more that verbal diarrhoea. I ought to remind you that the NG is called 'epistemology'. THis would suggest to anyone, that statements ought employ verifiable and definable phenomena; this is not a obscure words competition. Maybe you would find some friends in ALT.OBSCURANTIS ?
I'll give you a prize for verbosity, but as for meaningful statements go to the bottom of the class. On Sep 6, 11:43 pm, Timothy Monicken <[email protected]> wrote: > The limits of your exposure are now obvious to me... still, the problem is > not necessarily *solely* with your *lack* of sufficient investigations or > "breadth of research:" In fact, your developmental "circumstances,"are > somewhat *commonplace* (like so many others). Thus, your problems with > apprehension (despite my attempts to clarify) are not only* forgivable*, but > *understandable*. > > *However*, your overt *antagonism* displayed is *not*.>> I would > *caution*you in attacking that with which you are obviously > unfamiliar.>>> That which > is not presently within your purview should not be summarily discarded - I > humbly suggest that you seek full understanding, *then* (and *only* then) > offer a critique that is *constructive* rather than dismissive. * In simplest > terms, epistemology may be defined as "knowledge about knowledge" and > therefore is, by its very nature, an investigation that is inherently > meta-cognitive.* By that reason alone, any cosmological or cybernetic > perspective offered can only *enhance* the dialogue rather than detract. > You may want to check the holes in your own understanding before displaying > this kind of knee-jerk behavior that your "one-liner" critiques now > evidence; > > From now on, reply to me with some thoughtful "original" language if you are > *truly* seeking to raise your level of epistemological prowess: otherwise, > don't bother... for the time being, you've lost any real credibility with > me. >>> I tend to be forgiving of poor form, but yours smacks of > both*inflated & deteriorated academic landscapes > * - it may be time for some *thorough* self-analysis, 'Chazwin." (??????) > Catch my drift??? Yes I catch your drift! You are a meandering river, babbling away, keeping himself happy, but saying nothing. > > > > On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 3:46 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 3, 11:03 pm, Timothy Monicken <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am not necessarily a "theist" in the most common sense of the word, > > though > > > I do believe in a kind of "cosmic consciousness," which then allows for > > the > > > 'combinatorics' of this universe to ensue according to "aptness of > > derived > > > function." > > > Are you quoting yourself? What is combinatorics? How does it 'ensue > > (?) aptness of derived function - which is what exactly? > > > >> To answer the idea of "implicate order," it was first brought > > > into the vernacular by David Bohm. > > > If you are trying to establish whatever it is you mean by 'cosmic > > consciousness' by applying BOhm's idea of the holonomic brain, you > > ought to be advised that he was talking about grey matter specifically > > and not inert disorganised matter that is characteristic of the > > universe. > > > > The "idea" is essentially linked to the > > > *unfolding universe* as an *expression* that, in my view, can be tied to > > a > > > kind of *teleological referencing...* hope this helps. > > > Are you being deliberately obscurantist - are do you actually think > > you are making sense? > > > Oh, and I view DNA > > > as the most *elementary* of derived information systems... stemming from > > a * > > > synthesis* or process of "conception." > > > What a strange and imaginative view. Is this view evidential? > > > It is immaterial (in my view) that > > > any specific "ideas" do or do not "originate" in the human mind... as the > > > human mind is merely one possibility of a "cybernetic environment." I > > fear > > > we have "elevated" human consciousness into some kind of revered "holy > > > cow." > > > This is *not* to say that I minimize the potential efficacy of the > > > collective human mind... but due to our present & shared "boundedness" - > > > both dimensionally and recursively speaking, it *must* be acknowledged > > that > > > "we" are NOT "all that." > > > Do you imagine that any of this is valuable to an Epistemology NG? > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:25 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > DNA does not contain ideas a priori. The idea that there is such a > > > > thing as DNA was, at one time original. > > > > I'm not sure where you are going with this unless you are a theist. > > > > > On Aug 25, 11:37 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Does this take us back to the biochemical formula behind each DNA > > > > code---is > > > > > it that, which is original?. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:36 PM, chazwin <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > As each organism is unique, then all DNA arrangements are original. > > > > > > > On Aug 24, 5:31 pm, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The word idea is may be of conflict and so populated by different > > > > > > > concepts that I allow me to rephrase, can anything be an > > original? > > > > > > > Yes I think so, for instance DNA > > > > > > > So if something can be original, then the corresponding idea it > > is as > > > > > > > well, whatever means idea, DNA, etc. > > > > > > > This does not mean DNA cannot be copied, but to mean there is > > always > > > > > > > an original > > > > > > > > On 22 ago, 13:17, Awori <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is there such a thing as an original idea? Can ideas originate > > from > > > > > > > > without? > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups > > > > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > > . > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google > > > > > > groups.com> > > <epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google groups.com> > > > > <epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google groups.com> > > > > > > . > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > nubiaafrika.blogspot.com > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google > > > > groups.com> > > <epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google groups.com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google > > groups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
