Oh yeah, one other thing you're expert on dave, Refusing to ever, ever admit a single point in your dialogic opponent's favor. And when confounded? You get your skirts in a tizzy, flounce out the door and announce, "this just isn't fun anymore."
I'm callin' you out, you metaphysical sissy On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:55 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > RMP says: > > "So It has really been a shock to see how close Bradley is to the MOQ. Both > he and the MOQ are expressing what Aldous Huxley called "The Perennial > Philosophy," which is perennial, I believe, because it happens to be true. > Bradley has given an excellent description of what the MOQ calls Dynamic > Quality and an excellent rational justification for its intellectual > acceptance. It and the MOQ can be spliced together with no difficulty into a > broader explanation of the same thing." > > > >> dmb says: >> >> Pirsig's endorsement at the end? That's a good example of intellectual >> dishonesty. In this case, I'd characterize the violation as a "selective use >> of evidence". Anyone who reads the annotations can plainly see that Pirsig >> finds similarities with Idealism but he also grows increasingly irritated by >> Bradley's theism and he says the MOQ drops that part of it cold. > > > > John says: > > And I'd definitely characterize your "increasingly irritated" as the > plainest intellectual dishonesty. How can someone become increasingly > irritated and then make an about-face that the author deems, "a shock"? and > all you point to is the increasing irritation? > > I'd say the increasing irritation is in the mind of dmb, as the > intellectual dishonesty in construing your favorite "antitheism" quote as > the gist of the whole. > > tsk tsk indeed. > > > > > He thinks its quite wrong for Bradley to be sneaking his theistic goods in >> through the back door. And of course I have not forgotten that you came here >> with a religious agenda and that Absolute Idealism is more or less your way >> to try and sneak your goods in through the back door. >> >> > > Sneak? I'm about as up-front and honest with who I am, where I come from > and what I believe as anybody on this list. Just about everything that is > me is described in detail in these missives and open to perusal in the > archives. > > > >> It's dishonest and sleazy. You know perfectly well what Pirsig said about >> the MOQ being anti-theistic. >> >> Deal with it. > > > I have dave. I have and am and will. > > I also know that when it comes to "dishonest and sleazy", you're the > expert. Just like you're the expert on "projection". > > > > > > 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
