Uhhh, no, no insult(s) made or intended… although I do see how one could interpret there having been some.
And yes, mainly because of our apparent lack of ability to communicate, I’m pretty much through with the discussion. Thanks for the tenacity at least! On May 12, 5:01 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:30 AM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Your analogy between philosophy and bubble gum, as clever as it is, > > isn’t clear to me when ‘nutritional value’ is mentioned. No doubt you > > have a personal meaning to this phrase; however, it is opaque to me. > > If you wish to expand, that would be great! > > By 'nutritional value' I'm referring to the application of philosophy to > everyday living. When I'm working or playing (if you exclude discussion on > this group) I have no use for philosophy. It doesn't help me complete a > project or get my RC heli in the air. > > > Hopefully your question about having ‘a clear view’ on materiality and > > philosophy is meant to be humor…or at least mere rhetoric. Most people > > can have a clear view of different things/notions whether they are > > similar, of the same nature, a subset of the other or countless other > > qualities that in fact do not hinder having a discriminating mind. > > The issue is the stance that you appear to require from me. You want me to > take a stance on either philosophy or materialism. This makes no sense to > me. > > > As to what you should take a ‘clear stance on’, I’ll answer: Anything > > you are discussing here…if possible. Perhaps it isn’t possible on > > occasion. > > > From the description of the Minds Eye Group: > > “A Forum to RATIONALLY express your ideas on: Religion, Philosophy, > > Literature, the Fine Arts, etc…” > > > If you don’t wish to present cogent discussion, OK. I just thought you > > were implying you had some apparently different views and wished to > > express them. > > Ah. Insults. Thank you. This makes the discussion much more clear for me. I > chose to ignore the condescension but one can only ignore so much can't one? > > I guess this conversation is over. ;)
