Again, your own prattle delivers *little of substance*, quick on the defensive posturing.... all the signs of an ill-prepared, trifling pedantic youth, fresh out of college (at best). So, once again I suggest that you *read & research with due diligence*, thenn* offer a truly broadened mind to the group rather the tripe, drivel, & episodes of mental masterbations with which you presently plague us.
*thenn = then and ONLY then On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:42 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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%[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%[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%[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]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > 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.
