Hi Marsha, I'll take your understanding, philosophical insights and wisdom over DMB's arrogant nastiness and presumption of intellectual superiority any day. Next thing you know he'll call you a racist.
Platt On 22 Jul 2010 at 12:22, MarshaV wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:12 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > > Marsha said: > > ...because RMP has clearly stated that there are many truths, and in > > regards to philosophy a position can be both true and false, and that truth > > is relative, I am correct to stick with what I know from my own experience. > > > > dmb says: > > > > Well, Marsha, as I keep pointing out, you have confused Buddhism with > > fascism. > > Marsha: > Do you think so? > > > > Your understanding of the MOQ turns it into relativist nightmare. Like I > > said to John, you have confused diversity with promiscuity. I mean, wanting > > lots of different opinions is not the same thing as dropping our standards > > of quality to accommodate every opinion. That's just intellectual > > debauchery. > > Marsha: > And like I've said to you, what you think matters little to me, though I wish > you well. > > > > > "If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim > > to be the bearers of objective immortal truth ... then there is nothing > > more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity... From the fact that > > all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, > > the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for > > himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy > > of which he is capable." (Benito Mussolini, 1921) > > Marsha: > Geez... > > > > Part of the problem is that you define static patterns as ever-changing. > > That's like defining stable to mean unstable. It's just plainly wrong. > > There is DQ and there is sq and "ever-changing" is a good description of > > just one of them and it isn't the latter. There is a 50-50 chance of > > getting that right but you blew it. > > Marsha: > You think about however it works for you. I will continue to explore my > own understanding. > > > > This is a philosophy forum, you know? Killing static intellectual patterns > > has it's place but not during a philosophy discussion. That would be like > > touting the virtues of fasting during a feast or expressing the joy of > > dance at a funeral. It's just insensitive to the point of obliviousness. > > It's like pooping in the punch bowl. You might feel liberated but that's > > not enlightenment. You're using "meditation" as cover so you don't have to > > play by the same rules as everyone else. > > > > You're too enlightened for philosophy? Jeez, I think you flatter yourself > > way too much. > > > Marsha: > I'm not enlightened, but I am wise enough to know I don't know. 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
