Krimel. 7 June:
[Bo] before: > > > I think it is required because Reality = X, = Tao, = Green Cheese is > > > good for nothing. However I agree 100% with Reality = Dynamic and > > > Static Quality. [Krimel] > > That is hardly a response. It doesn't even show the slightest > > indication that you even understand the nature of the problem. The > > question was why, not what. But let's start back in kindergarten: > > why do you think this division or any such division is required? Do > > you even see the difference between Quality=Reality and > > "Quality"="Reality"? I answered your question (why a division was mandatory) with the obvious that any "Reality = X" is lame, tame and impotent. [Bo]: > > > What gives the MOQ its explanatory power is the point of its highest - > > > static level being the previous SOM, [Krimel] > > This explains nothing. The Greek distinction between continuous and > > discontinuous, the metaphysical argument between Heraclitus and > > Parmenides predates SOM and seems more or less identical to SQ/DQ. > > But they all along with the giant dung beetle lie confortablly > > together with the MoQ on the intellectual level I have yet to find one SOM-induced problem that the MOQ doesn't explain: Try me! [Bo] before > > > thus there is no theoretical, abstract, conceptual ... whatever in the > > > MOQ, [Krimel] > > Right the MoQ is theoretical, abstract, conceptual ... and whatever. Please not these Ande-like inanities! [Bo] > > > It also has a biological level and says that intelligence > > > entered with brain, but does not consider itself as an intelligence > > > (in the mind sense) product. [Krimel] > > This anthropomorphic language of yours is inappropriate and > > misleading. Levels don't say anything and the MoQ cannot "consider". > > It is a product of the mind to be considered. Well if you chose not to discuss the MOQ be my guest, but like Ham you have to drop your own hobby-horse to be part of this discussion. [Bo] > > > Language is the ocean in which we swim so all efforts to introduce > > > language is futile. [Krimel] > > WTF, without language there would be nothing to introduce and not > > way to introduce it. Try to engage your mind here, Bo. The point was not skipping language, just that one must not include it in any metaphysical scheme. I mean we can talk about a time without language, but not like DMB and Co say that language is the static destroyer of dynamic unity. [Bo] > > > All this about each person a subjective island who may or may not > > > communicate across the waters by language is intellect's (SOM's) > > > business so I leave it. I admire your intellectual - conventional - > > > knowledge, but cut it short, we are here to discuss the MOQ [Krimel] > > As I pointed out communication of emotion is built in and does not > > require language. Language is just term we use to apply to > > communication system that require learning and consensus in order to > > work. It includes speech, gestures smoke signals, trail markers and > > smoke signal. It's communications in the conceptual sense I speak about and what we mean with "language". Body language hardly counts even if the message is clear. [Krimel] > > It is factually incorrect to say that all early metaphysics was > > dualistic. Giant dung beetlism wasn't, neither was Taoism isn't, > > neither is Judiasm, neither is Buddhism, neither were the myriad of > > cultures who pointed to earth, wind, fire and water. I don't know the "Giant Dung Beetleism", but I guess the Beetle created the world of its adhereres and as you demonstrate Taoism was not of any use until the Yang/Yin development. Judaism is Javeh and His World (and his chosen people)and Buddhism declares all existence has Buddha nature but have different appearances. Krimel continued: > > Ancient and > > tribal people were far more creative in there metaphysical story > > telling than you imagine. How foolish are you to say that Pharaoh > > Akhnaten, the world's first monotheist, had no reality, no sense of > > his own existence, no experience or no metaphysics. That is shear > > speculation at best and just plain ignorant at worst. I give you a > > shaky edge toward the former for the moment but the ice is very > > thin. I have not sleighed any gods I just say that all ordering of existence is dualistic is some form or other. [Bo] > > > I had high hopes for you Krimel but you too proved to a be a dud. A > > > moq dud that is, plenty smart otherwise. [Krimel] > > Uh, thanks I guess but I have to say that so far my original > > assessment of the nature of SOL's unassailability stands. Like the Cardinals you just refuse to look through the MOQ "telescope" much less adjust it to SOL sharpness, and who am I to force you? Bodvar 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/md/archives.html
