Dear Dave Bo before > > Spot on Dave and thanks for not letting the "debunk Bo" urge get the > > best of you. I admire you for that.
DMB: > Thanks Bo, but I certainly had no intention of defending your position. As > far as I'm concerned it has already been thoroughly debunked and the those > who think otherwise simply do not comprehend what SOM of the MOQ is, > especially you and Platt. I did not really think you had decided to become a SOL-ist, but could not help my glee when you unavoidably were led into it when trying to USE the MOQ instead of the tiresome "debunking Bo" argument. > > Symbols (vs what is symbolized) and abstractions (vs concrete) are part > > of intellect's S/O. dmb says: > This is a misconception and it is just one of many examples. In the MOQ, > the difference between abstractions and concrete reality is the difference > between static intellectual patterns and direct everyday experience. It's > the difference between sq and DQ. You are simply misconstruing the MOQ as > SOM. This is too silly, not your staunched supporter will vouch for THAT. I rest my case. > I really, really hate what you're doing to this place, clogging it up with > this hair-brained nonsense all the time. I listened to it for over a > decade now and I'm just sick to death of it. Please, get a hobby. Go away. > Let us do philosophy, will you? That would be "a promising development". Yes, yes, here comes the real message, but I still appreciate the fact that when starting from MOQ's premises the S/O intellect inevitably pops up, you gave us a demonstration of it. No doubt you just want to philosoplologize but, now the MOQ seems safe from that lure. 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
