On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 9:58:31 AM UTC+2, telmo wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:55 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16 Jul 2019, at 13:44, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:11 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I don’t understand well what you say. > > > Nobody, including yourself, understands what you say generally. > > > > Just tell me what you don’t understand specifically, and avoid ad hominem > attack. It bores everybody, and distract from the thread. > > > That is just bullying, Bruno. You accuse everyone who disagrees with you > of ad hominem attacks. > > > That is a lie and you know it. >
All of us can read. I saw the ad hominem remark applied to Bruce's posts by Bruno multiple times. Read what Bruno said: "Just tell me what you don’t understand specifically, and avoid ad hominem attack. It bores everybody, and distract from the thread." He admits to not understanding and then assumes authority and my consent to solicit his advice as some high priest of theories of everything. You approach someone like that in the real world, them always forcing their game on you, anybody with self-respect would tell him to take a hike: I don't buy high priest discourse and refuse to participate in folks' delusions of themselves. That's the ad hominem. > And you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it. I challenge you to > find one instance on this mailing list where Bruno accused anyone of ad > hominem without having been directed insulted: "pee pee theories", "you > don't make sense", "nobody knows what you're talking about", etc etc. I > know you won't produce this example because it doesn't exist, and I also > know that you will just avoid the topic and focus on the next insult / > patronizing comment. > > Well, I have been participating in this mailing list on and off for more > than one decade, and more or less the only original ideas being discussed > here come from Bruno. I have witnessed multi-year threads discussing what > he is saying in great detail, so clearly some people must have some idea of > what he is saying. > Interpersonal discourse is never this simple. On an open list you guys whine about dissent while lamenting lack of loyalty to Bruno for having "more or less the only original ideas here". That insults every participant including those of us who've found their way here without agendas of grooming followers into some professorial trip of personal mysticism presented as truth writ large. As if the list existed only in virtue of Bruno's generosity towards lesser people. I disagree because I've seen original thought from Telmo and most participants, while seeing the list as a place for folks to practice and enjoy banter *with disagreement and dissent* on theoretical/scientific topics. What this conspiracy type arguing performs discursively: Of course, targets for confidence tricks and conspiratorial discourse have blind faith in "debate/discourse" of their guru. Targets of such discourse are always framed as experts on the correct side of a victimized history. That's the poisonous reward: compensation at some later point, which is similar to the afterlife promise from any exploitative discourse. Cult charlatan territory is what this discourse toys with. In an age of disinformation you don't cede to believing what you read. You criticize or leave. No need to worry because nobody's here for your loyalty. You can keep sipping the kool aid of choice from the one guru of pure mathematical truth, originality, and perfection. Nobody will take that away from you because what's left to take? You've already given it all away. Including in recent weeks admitting to replacing notions of evidence with emotional appeals to the "correct, truthful attitude" along with disqualifying your and other members' own originality here today. Bruno's originality? I interpret history independently and see no evidence beyond speculative mathematical philosophy and a combinator result. Duplicating, machines, quantum logic, immortality all standard stuff with a few precisions on details. But original? Read more and at least try to test your own assertions. There's not much here and everybody here can do better. As if Bruno's approaches were the only thing under the sun. Get out there, question everything, and get after things. Don't believe what you read but read more outside zones of comfort. Do your thing. Read other things than internet chat! If you want platonism as metaphysics, then go out and fight in your local city councils and beyond. Realize your abilities to find and rally more consensus for your cause, its implication to the world and other people; and get out there. Instead his discourse in this setting implies the pursuit of the right attitude by sitting on our butts, playing professor uninvited, reading only his posts, the whole day splitting hairs in forums instead of getting behind whatever you feel strongly about and reaching out to the world. Don't talk to me about debating issues: debating for what? Aristotle's alleged "physicalism" on which so much of the "debates" with John are linguistically based, enjoys no scientific consensus. Matter with Aristotle is an unclear and inconsistent notion throughout Aristotle's writings. Folks should justifiably be irritated when being sold such a bill of goods. All except the credulous of course. Forcing incompleteness to mean "soul" in the Christian sense, immunity from reductionism while uttering statements about gods and their wills with assumed scientific authority, admitting that nobody can make such statements while making them constantly, blasting the list with truth assertions day in and day out. "I don't truth you so you don't truth me" somebody quoted in recent weeks. Rightfully so because its insulting and rude: how stupid does he assume list members to be? That's not original thought, it's synonymous with confidence tricks for credibility in linguistic terms. Robbery with rhetorical tricks. Scientific contributions on the other hand are what they are: contributions, not statements of truth or some correct metaphysics or attitude. The humility he admonishes everybody for not having: a double standard by his own discursive measures. And I'll counter the "boring" argument as poor aesthetics from folks outside their fields. Theoretical topics and their discussion can be abused. To deny the possibility of such is too innocent for you guys. It belongs on the agenda if this list is public and free. > Maybe the limitation is on your side? > > You insist on rigor when you talk to Bruno (as you should), and then you > side with someone who produced exactly zero arguments, that writes long and > incoherent rants > Who rants the most here? Who has the time for the highest number and longest posts? Who writes as though they had to correct every thought and split every hair with other members? > that aim only at insulting Bruno for personal reasons. Unlike John Clark > for example. Say what you will, but I have never seen John Clark side with > bullshit just because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Give me a break > here. You are about as far from having a scientific attitude as I am from > becoming the next Miss Universe. > You are right. Miss Universe is at least expected to have a brain of her own and answer questions her own way! On an open list everybody's opinions matter, just like in democracy. Deal with it or whine and practice conspiratorial discourses in private. No buy. Not interested. Be as polite as you say you are instead of unleashing motherly assaults, theological rants on ideal attitudes, when folks are skeptical on matters religion and theology or employing bizarre rhetorical tricks dismissing alleged statements as physicalist and stupid. We're people beyond ideologies. Not reducible to written statements on chat forums as virtually all this discourse assumes. Chat fundamentalism. Immunity from reductionism? Lol The woo woo is decadence. Show me instead. I show what I parse to be discursive intent because that's what interests me with science: what do you mean? what kind of world does that paint? Is it beautiful? Is it joyous or are you just getting off on posting in public? Independent, no side for me. Salt for everyone. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/370e63e8-8f22-4695-9ee8-6f7e54fc79be%40googlegroups.com.
