> > > [SA previously] > > As long as you understand I wasn't saying we > > should get rid of "oops" or "aha" or > > ge-wiz or > > lalala. I was trying to encourage a further > > description in what these concepts mean, which it > > looks like you may have done further on in this post. > > Good. > > > > [Arlo] > > I've done further many times in the past. > > SA: And statistically I always agree with you. I say statistically, > because I may have disagreed with you somewhere along the line, but I > can't remember when, thus, it is insignificant on the larger scale it > would seem. > > Arlo: > > It's been Platt who's preferred to reduce what he > > disagrees with to glib remarks such as "oops". > > SA: I know. Now, maybe if Platt would say "I don't know" more often, as > he has in a recent post to Ron, it would make more sense as to where he is > coming from. I heard this quote last night about cooking. To paraphrase, > some people like their cooking done with submission, others like to allow > the natural flavor of the food to be enhanced. I like the latter in > life. > > Arlo: > > Indeed, "Aha!" as only conceived in response to > > Platt's absurd reductions (by Krimel, if I > > recall) as a way of saying, "if you want to > > resort to simplistic monosyllabic caricatures > > than "aha!" is more accurate than > > "oops"". And, > > if you read the thread here, you'll see that I > > have been doing nothing but calling for Platt and > > Ham to explain their "abracadabra! poof!" views. > > SA: true, and they haven't been able to discuss their statements. > > > > > [SA previously] > > I find a "Great Plan" too limiting. I find > > "unintended consequence" too limiting. Intention > > can connote a 'Intender', but I don't think > > that > > way. Intention to me is the hills guiding the > > Allegheny River in a certain direction, but as > > geography shifts, the direction can shift. > > > > [Arlo] > > In my view, the hills do not intend for the river > > to flow in any direction. Certainly, the river > > flows as it does in response to its environment, > > of which the hills are one part. But where the > > river runs, and what shape the river takes, is > > unintended. > > SA: I find the river to be flowing in a certain direction. > > Arlo: > > And, a million years ago, it was > > unknown where rivers would be, or what form they > > would take. > > SA: I agree. > > Arlo: > > The river you see as you walk is the > > unintended consequence of the combinations of all > > factors in its environment. > > SA: Yeap. That's why intention is too limiting. Also though, the river > tends to go where the hills are guiding them, so, unintended is too > limiting for me. I guess it depends on what one means by "intend". > Intend means for me, guidance and structure is involved. Unintended > means, no guidance and no structure. Hills and a river are a bit of both. > What do we call this both? How can we describe this both without the > understanding breaking down into old habits, old traditional ways of > thinking? Well, we're doing it right now. > > Arlo: > > Had one quake altered > > the landscape differently, the river would have > > emerged differently (or maybe not at all). > > SA: Around the last ice age, the Allegheny River flowed north near where > the Beaver River is, if I remember correctly. > > Arlo: > > Take a more active example, the event (asteroid, > > volcano, whatever) that caused the extinction of > > the dinosaurs. Did that asteroid (or whatever) > > intend to destroy the dinosaurs? > > SA: The intention, for me, is in the direction the asteroid was going and > where it hit, and what happened. The structural aspect that delineates an > occurrence set by a projectory. I'm not focused on it had to happen this > way. > > Arlo: > > Did that asteroid intend to bring about the era of the > > mammal? If not an "Intender", then what > > "intended" to make consciousness? > > SA: As said, the regression in ones thinking, the bringing up of an > "intender", is to focus in a certain way about what is meant. Since I'm > saying both pure intention is too limiting and pure unintention is too > limiting, then I must be talking about something else, correct? > > > > [SA previously] > > Ham doesn't know how to answer a lot of > > questions, even about what he says. That's Ham & > > Swiss Cheese for ya. I don't know would be a good > > enough answer for me. > > > > [Arlo] > > I gave Ham this out, but he can't say this > > because this would preclude him from saying > > "you're wrong" to people who do espouse a > > view he can't ideologically stomach. > > SA: yeah, it's tyrannical. > > > > [Arlo had asked] > > Ask yourself, SA, why do you think Platt feels he > > must resort to such blatant lies to mask his > > inability to answer these questions? > > > > [SA] > > I don't know. > > > > [Arlo] > > I think you're too kind. :-) > > SA: I don't know "why" he does it, other than to deceive, but deceive > limits the discussion. Maybe he's trying to hide something or is in the > middle of learning something but doesn't know how to explain this > transition.? > > > SA
SA: What "blatant lies" do you think I have perpetrated? Thanks. Platt 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/
