I need do no batter. I am still waiting for a reasonable response to my queries. For the rest - I think einseele has hit a few nails on the head and has anticipated some of my objections to your poor responses.
On Sep 9, 2:22 am, Timothy Monicken <[email protected]> wrote: > Really "Chaz?" Is that the best you can do??? You've relegated yourself to > personal attacks rather than your cherished critiques about "verbosity" and > other prescriptive edicts... very sad indeed. *Let's start again:* * > Despite* your rash tendencies, I believe you may actually be the sort who > wants to *understand* the universe in which we, in turn, find *ourselves*. > Fair enough? I've been thinking (a lot) about Garrett Lisi's E8 symmetry. I > am drawn to it for a number of reasons, but we can discuss these later. As > it is supposed to predict a whole slough of new particles, I thought you > might benefit from considering this divine(?) symmetry pointing to the GUTS > of our collective existence. Afterward, give the group your feedback and * > developed* *sensibilities* surrounding this continuum model. Just follow > the links... which, in turn will lead to other > links....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xHw9zcCvRQ > ANDhttp://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html > > Have fun in your "surfing!!!" And "dude," I mean that! > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:27 PM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Have you talked to your doctor about stepping up your medication? > > > On Sep 8, 8:07 pm, Timothy Monicken <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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%2bunsubscr...@google > > > > > > > > > > groups.com> > > <epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google groups.com> > > > > <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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
