Arlo said to Ham: Your little jabs about my "inability to understand" are funny, but I'll be open to anyone else in this forum who can explain to me how what you give are "answers" to my questions.
dmb says: Right. I think Ham has to entertain the idea that "your" inability to understand is completely normal. I don't understand either and don't see how anybody could simply because it makes no sense. I don't believe Ham understands it either. His use of Eckhart, for example, should open up some understanding of the philosophical mysticism and the Buddhist concepts that are relevant to the MOQ but he blows right past that and turns Eckhart into an essentialist. And there's another thing. Ham has brought essentialism to the MOQ, which is vigorously anti-essentialist. Even if there were no other problems, either one of these would be enough to sink any chance of success of connecting with MOQers. Apparently, Ham feels personally persecuted by the fact that very few MOQers are willing to buy his Essentialism. But actually, it only stands to reason that a MOQer would reject such a thing. The most central and often repeated claims are wildly at odds with the MOQ. Its positively medieval. Its crypto-theological essentialism. Its absolutist and totalitarian and yet it doesn't add up or have any basis in empirical reality. Its everything a MOQer doesn't like. If Ham wants to swim upstream against all that, he's brave. But, sadly, I don't think he understands how or why the MOQ is so very incompatible with what he's doing. Sorry, Ham. I'm might be wrong but at least I'm sincere. _________________________________________________________________ See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts. http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008 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/
