Sigh, good job my ego's not the sensitive kind DMB ;-) I get that, but I simply hold up the evidence that plenty of people on MoQ.Dicsuss still experience the lack of clarity - even with definitions - of what the MoQ levels do say about the real world - not just the explicit description existence of static patterns in the real world (I do get that), but also how we "should" interpret / decide best actions / interactions with it, and how we should communicate those with common understanding.
You don't seem to have that problem, was all I said about you here. You could therefore help the rest of us. My last response to Mati, Ron, Gav and yourself says more of relevance - about drivel vs rigour - though clearly unlikley to be said in a way that will satisfy you ... probably infuriate you more ... all I ask, infuriated or not that you do not doubt my sincerity in trying to solve a problem - you don't need to keep reminding me my style (aka drivel) is not to your (rigorous) taste. I agree already, and it's not an accident. Ian On 7/22/08, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > dmb said previously: > I think that definitions are essential when one is doing metaphysics and that > the differences between social and intellectual values can be discussed in > conventional terms, not least of all because the differences themselves are > conventional. ...the conflicts between social and intellectual values are > legal, political, sociological, historical and military conflicts. ... > > Ian replied: > DMB has the advantage that he has moved on to a level where he can see that > talking in SOMist (conventional) terms about the (largely historical, > political etc ...) levels is exactly that, just a matter of convention, and > not allow it to confuse his thinking about the MoQ itself. ...It just means > we (jointly) haven't found a way to exchange views (using these SOMist > conventions) that doesn't confuse what we actually express about the MoQ > "subject" under discussion. > > dmb says: > Sigh. > > You've confused things once again. > > The levels of the MOQ are about conventional reality, static reality, but > they are offered as a cure for the intellectual paralysis wrought by SOM. > They are meant to replace SOM, to take away its metaphysical status and put > it in a wider context. To talk about the levels in conventional terms is not > at all the same as talking in SOM terms. In fact, one of the central problems > with SOM is that there is no social/intellectual distinction, the distinction > at the center of these discussions. There is nothing particularly SOM about > definitions. The work of James, Dewey and Pirsig is full of definitions even > while they are rejecting SOM. > > Your comments make no sense to me at all and yet you've attached my name as > if I'd said it or agreed with it. Neither is the case and I'll ask you to > leave me out of it, to please keep your drivel to yourself. Can I get you a > bib? > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. > http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008 > 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/
