Hello, Andre. Been reading these interactions, DMB, you, marsha, DMB's answers as given, quit honestly i think i have the same feeling as DMB shows, i do not really understand what Marsha is asking, DMB is not the only one so to speak. I see your doubts too. i was never under the impression that the moq or the works or the annotations are ruling out irrationality, conciousness, feelings from direct expirience, or responses to direct expirience, direct expirience covers all expirience that can be observed , direct or indirect observable=observable, irrationality is observable, feelings are observable, it is not because we cannot describe them adequally, that they are outside reality. There is no conflicting matter within the work i can find back, there are no inconsistencies.
Strange. I keep reviewing here interactions, i try to do so in a constructive way, but i get the feeling somehow, that she is presenting background scripted material, like some script kiddie is working on the interactions, trying to shred DMB's and your lines , dissasemble, re-engineer the presented answers.Like she is advocating Bodvarisms back in. There is always some suspisious time delay between the shreddings. It patterns. Greetzz, Adrie 2010/9/19 Andre Broersen <[email protected]> > Marsha to Andre: > > > My questions specifically were how are feelings, passions and other modes > of consciousness > included back into rationality as dmb suggested? How are they included > back into science? > How are they included back into mathematics? How? > > Andre: > Without wanting to be a smart-arse Marsha, I think that the MOQ is asking > (and answering) the > points you raise. It specifically asks how on earth it has been possible to > exclude them. ZMM > and LILA have adequately answered these, as dmb has pointed out to you by > giving you relevant > passages. > > Our consciousness functions through them and through our consciousness they > function. The test > of the quality of this functioning lies in direct experience. This is, as > far as I understand it, > what the radical empiricist argues and offers. > > Marsha: > > I guess maybe I should thank you, Adrie and Ron for standing in for the > philosophologist. > > Andre: > If you are this unsure about it, don't do it. And your further addition is > uncalled for. > > > 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 > -- parser 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
