On Aug 21, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Krimel wrote: > [Marsha] > An analogy of what you're requesting might be like asking someone to explain > Quantum entanglement using Newtonian proofs. Of course dmb's trying to > explain the MoQ using James texts is just as ridiculous. > > [Krimel] > I like James' distinction between percepts and concept. His treatment of > them in Some Problems... is very good and worth your attention. But yeah, at > some point it is time to move on. Many of the concepts that inform my > understanding the MoQ didn't exist during James' time. > > [Marsha] > I miss Bo. > > [Krimel] > I mostly ignored Bo but I did respect the fact that he never whined about > being attacked and could take it as well as he dished it out. > > I was content to file his posts unread and saw no reason boot him for being > hardheaded. After all, if we lost all of the hard heads, who'd be left?
Marsha: So now there is nothing to stop you Newtonian, SOM flatlanders from demanding Euclidean answers from those with Riemannian insight. I'm too depressed to whine, but if I went riding, you better believe I'd whip the horse's backside too. ___ 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
