Greetings Sir Knight,
On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:17 PM, John Carl wrote: > Greetings Marsha, > > John: > I've been pondering a few things, and would like to take this step by step, > upon due reflection. > > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:35 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 28, 2010, at 3:21 PM, John Carl wrote: >> >>> John: >>> Ok, Marsha, I have no idea how to proceed in a dialogue which >>> alway sends in the same formulation. >>> Neither do I have a clue how to proceed when rationality is rejected. >> >> Marsha: >> Not rejected, but understood to be flawed. >> > > John: > I agree. But ask what does that look like exactly? How do we treat ideas or > concepts in a " flawed but non-rejected" way? Marsha: With a healthy dose of suspicion... > John: > Let me thrust my conjectures upon you, and see if I can wheedle some > agreement. Marsha: As a woman, often I enjoy being on top and like to thrust too!!! Got that John??? > John: > First, we both agree that rationality is not absolute. Marsha: Rationality claims to be absolute: a thing cannot be both A and not-A. > John: > AND it doesn't get the last word, i.e. if something seems completely > rationally plausible, but doesn't "feel' right, then we look deeper. Marsha: I would wish to make this a habit of value. > John: > We examine the underlying issues that cause the bad feelings. Marsha: It would be nice if so many of the causes were not out of our awareness. > John: > But we can't just stop with "it feels wrong" because relying upon > feelings and intuitions alone would be as foolish as relying upon > logic and rationality alone, correct? Marsha: Incorrect. If a thing must never be both A and not-A, and that is understood as the final arbiter, well then things get really messed up. Surely that is obvious! > John: > Neither can be complete in themselves. They must be in accord. > They must dance together and not step on each other's toes. > Do you not agree? Marsha: I don't agree or disagree. Agreement based on faulty logic is not always a worthy goal. >>> Marsha: >>> My instincts, intuition and all just seem to whisper to me, "this >>> conversation isn't going anywhere." >> >> Marsha: >> We agree. >> >> > > John: > Yes but my quest for understanding makes me wonder why. It drives me > deeper into more questions. More digging. Intellectual probing is utterly > instinctual and a self-driving force. I can certainly stop pestering with > questions, but I can't stop (or don't wanna) asking why in my own mind. Marsha: This makes you irresistibly attractive to me. This is personal, but no matter how outlandish (The Son? Really!!!) the questions, even those pesky theistic ones, because I am an introverted thinker, I find them endlessly seductive. But the ABSOLUTE answer came to me a long time ago: "There is no answer now, there never was an answer in the past, and there never will be an answer in the future." Ah-men!!! Not A Not -A Not (A and -A) Not (neither A nor -A) Not this, not that... Quality! Emptiness! Love! I do love to laugh... ((( And damn to that pesky karma... ))) > John: > And that's a good thing. Marsha: I agree. > In this case, I'm especially glad that you've irritated me into pondering. > So thanks, sincerely. And here's a place where we did both rely upon > instinct's whispers, and we did both agree, and we both were wrong! Or > at least our instincts were. This conversation is going somewhere. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb9dcv1xDiY >>> John: >>> My instincts tell me that you are being over-defensive, and any >>> guess I publish as to why, gets immediately shot down by you >>> as false projection on my part. >> >> Marsha: >> That would depend if you made a false projection. > > > John: > Yes, this was a misunderstanding on my part. I was puzzled why you > objected to me making projections - but you were objecting to me making > false projections, wrong projections. Marsha: Projections are always that: projections. They may be to some degree correct, but also very wrong. > John: > You probably figured that I was kinda obtuse for not getting that, and I was. > I get awful literal in logical argumentation. If you leave a word out, don't > assume > I'll guess what it is. But I will figure it out in the end. Marsha: I would never make such an assumption. You may figure it out, you may not. >> John: >> You post "victory" and "winning an argument" as very important to you and >> thus I guess I'll just concede that your superior reasoning (or is it >> non-reasoning? > > Marsha: > You could never be a loser in my eyes. > > John: > Hah! That's easy to say when you've never seen me! But I'll take > it as a compliment anyway, Marsha. And yeah, I know. Marsha: Good. >>> John: >>> I admit I'm confused) goes right over my head, and I'll take >>> your word for it that the last word to any discussion, speculation >>> or query is not this, not that. >>> >>> You win! >> >> Marsha: >> No me to win. >> >>> >>> John: >>> Yay Marsha! >> >> Marsha: >> Boo to Marsha if she seems the winner. >> >> > John: Well then, I was right Yay Marsha. And Yay John for being right. > Dancing is a game with TWO winners, ya know. > > Watch out for the twirl I'm about to give you, It's a doozy. Marsha: As far as I am concerned, I bumped it out of he park!!! Bye John, Marsha ___ 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
