Krimel said to dmb: Ok, this is the same lame critique you have offered in the past. I think it misses several points but...
dmb replies: You could take a look at the philosophers I mentioned. Their explanations would certainly be less lame than my explanations. I've asked Matt K to explain to you how the linguistic turn in philosophy has impacted on SOM. That's kind of his specialty. But maybe he's not interested. But it would take actual work to give more than I already have. When it comes to going off the top of my head, that's about it. But thanks. It was fun trying. [Krimel] I don't really see how the linguistic turn applies to whether or not you reject the existence of a world external to your own thoughts. Or how such a view could be reconciled with a scientific view. Or how you can possibly regard the MoQ as dualistic. Or why you think mystical experiences have not been the subject of scientific study. Or why you think the universality of mystical experiences makes them more valid guides to truth than universally reported hallucinations or dreams. Or if we grant your wildest fantasies about applying radical empiricism what questions we could then ask and what hypothesis you would propose. But Matt's a smart guy, at least if he puts words in your mouth this time it will be because you asked him to. 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/
