[Ron]
> Sorry for getting worked up, SA.
> It is a peev of mine
> When I get the feeling someone
> Is deliberately messing with me.
[Sa]
I wasn't deliberately messing with you. I just
don't understand how absolute changes the meaning of
zero, nothing, and dynamic quality. If it doesn't
change their meaning, then it's not necessary. That's
why I said you could replace absolute, in this
context, with eggs, and zero, nothing, and dynamic
quality would stay the same. If you think it helps
you, then use absolute. I am dug into my position.
[Ron]
Dynamic quality being absolutely indefinable has meaning
In it is about the most certain thing one can say about
Anything.
[Ron]
> And yes SA, in everyday life when somebody messes
> with me I tell them
> what I think, I am generally mild mannered, quiet
> and unassuming.
> What lies beneath is vile, ugly and violent....
> I make no secret about the fact I'm working on it.
> But you can't honestly tell me you weren't being
> belittling and sarcastic.
[SA]
When?
[Snip]
" I once asked you, Ham, if you just say off-the-way unthoughtful
> 'things' because your just trying to stir controversy, and you denied
> this as an emotional response and not accurate. So, who's really
> being not accurate here? I see Ron starting to do the same thing.
[Ron]
You see me starting to stir controversy and say off-the-wall
unthoughtful things, implying you are being emotional and not accurate.
> Ron, your bringing up of old classic/romantic split and trying to prop
> up SOM is either an honest, innocent inquiry or you've got nothing
> else to talk about, as Ham seemingly does.
> But hey, I'm not shutting the valve off. Life is such a twirl. So
> fun indeed!
>
> laughing,
> SA
Nope, no sarcasm there.
[Ron]
> I may be too sensitive but I did take that comment
> about talking just
> to say something personally. I don't know why,
> probably because it came
> from someone I like. It just hit a nerve. I'll get
> over it.
[SA]
I said it SEEMS you are starting to stir
controversy, as Ham admitted he was. I then went on
to say that you might be having honest inquires. I
don't see how I was saying you absolutely are stirring
Controversy.
[Ron]
I did not see the word "seems' in your statement.
You did say I might be having honest inquiries
But your ending remarks imply that you doubt it.
" Life is such a twirl. So
> fun indeed!
>
> laughing,
> SA"
[SA]
See, this is another reason why
absolutes don't work.
[Ron]
Never said they did, I was referring to truth and certainty
And how there are three types.
[Ron]
> It's obvious people just do not want to come
> together over this,
> No biggie. On to other topics...
[SA]
They can't come together. Ham's thesis is HAM's
thesis, and the moq is the MOQ. Why the need to make
one philosophy out of the apparent two?
[Ron]
Does not the MOQ embrace the concept Of radical empiricism?
That all experience and concepts are viable to some degree?
If Ham does not agree with MOQ that's Ham, but we as MOqer's
Must evaluate on the merit of "does it add anything to our
understanding?"
And not dismiss it based on our dislikes.
Cool rain
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
