> > > > SA previously: Didn't you say "consciousness > > changes" and you state "oops" is the > > > answer? I don't know if you used these words, > > exactly or not, but this is > > > what the discussion was about. > > Platt: > > No, I didn't say that. And if you are going to put > > quotes around words, it > > means you are quoting exactly what somebody said. > > SA: true. My mistake. > > > Platt: > > I'm trying to focus you on what Arlo said about me. > > SA: o > > > > > SA previously previously: > > > > > From my perspective, it's mainly > > been Ham, > > > > with his "consciousness > > > > > evolves" comment and then his blatant > > disregard > > > > to comment upon this quote > > > > > of his. He probably doesn't even know > > what his > > > > own words mean. It's his > > > > > track record. His 'mo'. > > > > > > Platt previously: > > > > Without offering any evidence, you charge is ad > > hominem. > > > > I'm surprised, > > > > SA. It's not like you to be like Arlo. > > > > > > SA previously: As I said to Ian in the Disagreement [MD], it > > depends on what you > > > mean by ad hominem, for I don't see anything ad > > hominem about what I said, > > > not at all. Enlighten me. > > Platt: > > >From Pirsig: Note 140, LC: > > "To say that a comment is "stupid" is to > > imply that the person who makes it > > is stupid. This is the "ad hominem" argument: > > meaning, "to the person." > > Logically it is irrelevant. If Joe says the sun is shining > > and you argue > > that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid, what > > does this tell > > us about the condition of the sun? > > "That the ad hominem argument is irrelevant is usually > > all the logic texts > > say about it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make > > what may be an > > original contribution. It says the ad hominem argument is > > a form of evil. > > The MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual" into > > four parts: inorganic, > > biological, and intellectual. Once this analysis is made, > > the ad hominem > > argument can be defined more clearly: It is an attempt > > destroy the > > intellectual patterns of an individual by attacking his > > social status. In > > other words, a lower form of evolution is being used to > > destroy a higher > > form. That is evil. > > "However the MOQ suggests that this only an > > intellectual evil. In > > politics, for example, to identify your political opponent > > as a former Nazi > > is not evil if he really was a Nazi, because politics is a > > dominantly > > social activity rather than an intellectual activity." > > SA: That's all good, but when did I make this mistake? All's I can find > is Ham not being able to understand his own words, which I'm referring to > a recent exchange between Ham and Ron in which Ham finally admitted that > for over two years (and more surely) he has tried to argue out what > dichotomy means and has tried to argue against me and others, but then Ron > with his clever logic (seriously) was able to point out to Ham what so > many others were, that Ham was trying to separate the world. Now Ham > knows a little bit more about what he's trying to use as an argument, he > learned something, and he's back off on this valid issue. So, I was > clearly pointing out that Ham might not know what he's saying, which > obviously then that's why Ham communicates his thesis in a confusing > manner.
To suggest someone "doesn't know what his own words mean" is the same as saying he's stupid. 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/
