Krimel 7 June.:
[Bo] before > I answered your question (why a division was mandatory) with the > obvious that any "Reality = X" is lame, tame and impotent. [Krimel] > What a stunning response. I didn't think you could really be that > thick headed despite my early assessment. Tell me the thick-headed the explanatory force of declaring Reality = X without the X having some "creation", "fall-out" or "expression"? As not to give you a chance to escape out on some tangent I limit myself to this issue. Bodvar PS I don't mind the least being called names as long as the MOQ proves unassailable, so you can save your foul breath. > > [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 > > [Bo] > I have yet to find one SOM-induced problem that the MOQ doesn't > explain: Try me! > > [Krimel] > I have explain the MoQ isn't offering anything new. There have always > be other ways of stating metaphysical problems. Some are "better" than > others. The MoQ only claims to have a place among the best. > > [Bo] > Please not these Ande-like inanities! > > [Krimel] > Like some very many others who attempted to talk sensibly to you I > think Andre at least understand the problem. I may disagree with him > and definitely disagree with some of the others. At least I can > respect them. You on the other hand obviously don't understand the > problem which be OK but your arrogance about it really isn't even > funny. Even Platt manages to be funny. > > > > > [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. > > [Bo] > 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. > > [Krimel] > It is one thing to use anthropomorphism as a heuristic device. But it > only would when you realize that is was you are doing. You really seem > to think the MoQ can have thoughts of its own and that the "levels" > are plotting elaborate schemes against one another. Once again if you > lost the arrogance it might at least be entertaining. > > > > > [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. > > [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. > > [Krimel] > You can't talk about a metaphysics without a language to describe it. > That is what Pirsig is saying about the mystics. If you don't > understand that you are beginning on this kind of slippery ground from > the onset you are going to spend most of your time falling on your > butt. Apparently, though it does make talking out of your ass seem > more reasonable. > > > > [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. > > [Bo] > 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] > What make body language clear but still language is that the message > is encoded and receive entirely automatically and biologically. What > makes spoke language work is that it is conceptual, learned and > consensual. > > [Bo] > 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] > It really seems like you are incapable of understanding what people > say to you. It's like are more deserving of out pity than our > condemnation. > > continued: > > > [Krimel] > > > Ancient and tribal people were far more creative in their > > > 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. > > [Bo] > I have not sleighed any gods I just say that all ordering of existence > is dualistic is some form or other. > > [Krimel] > I am from Florida. No doubt you know more about sleighing than I but > even a southern boy can tell when someone has fallen through the ice. > > [Bo] > 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? > > [Krimel] > You are at your most dense and most insulting when you claim that I > have much in common with the AWGI's and Pirsig's anointed. Thinking > you are deluded is about all we have in common. If we could stand to > be in the same room at the same time we would have you to thank for > bringing us together. > > 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 > > 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
