Krimel said to dmb:
...But please tell us all, what experience does not involve either sensation or
perception or both. Take your pick, mix and match. What kind of experience
would that be? What are we to actually consider in your expanded view.
dmb says:For the third time in as many exchanges, your thickness, Pirsig says,
" Most empiricists deny the validity of any knowledge gained through
imagination, authority, tradition, or purely theoretical reasoning. They regard
fields such as art, morality, religion, and metaphysics as unverifiable. The
MOQ varies from this by saying that the values of art and morality and even
religious mysticism are verifiable, and that in the past they have been
excluded for metaphysical reasons, not empirical reasons". Seriously, Krimel,
what part of this don't you understand? Why do you respond to my answers by
asking the same question again, as if I didn't just answer it? You seem like a
smart guy and then you do shit like this. Making me post the same answer three
times in a row is your idea of a practical joke, I guess. Either that or you're
challenged in some way.
Krimel said:...You use language which reduces concepts to words. You have
addressed none of this.
dmb says:I don't respond to stuff like this out of kindness. It only
demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. It makes no
sense to charge someone with reducing concepts to words. Concepts and words are
so intimately interrelated that they're not even two different things, let
alone things from different domains or levels. But when experience is explained
in terms of physiological processes, you're going to end up explaining
mystical, intellectual and social level phenomenon in biological terms. In
other words, you're then explaining higher, more complex realities in terms of
their lower and simpler constituents. That's reductionism. To avoid this kind
of reductionism, obviously, one needs to explain these higher level things in
their own terms, on their own level, within their own domain. Experience is
still the test of truth but this is not limited to physical phenomenon or to
what's experiences through the senses. Cutting up a woman to find her beauty is
very neat way to express the problem with reductionism. You'll not only fail to
find what you're looking for, you'll also upset the lady. It's a simple idea,
no? Until you can grasp this concept I really don't see any point debating
whether or not it applies to your view. It's just a logical necessity. It's
simply impossible to discuss a concept until you understand it. And since you
don't really know what it is you're denying, your denials are nonsense. If I
fail to respond, it's because your replies are a big tangled mess of hopelessly
irrelevant tap-dancing, wiki imports and "supporting" quotes that I have to
explain to you. Whose got time for that? Dude, flatter yourself. You're a drag,
not a challenge.
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
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/
