dmb,
Oh right! You didn't say anything. Too risky. Here what you wrote:
dmb says:
Yes, it's a refutation. I sincerely hope you'll think about it and come
to your own conclusions about what and how.
But here's a hint. The key words are "meditation" and "clap-trap".
You do make me laugh, dmb. As if your insults had value??? Hahahahahaha!
Marsha
On Oct 21, 2010, at 5:04 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> Marsha said to dmb:
>
> ... You want to think meditation is clap-trap, then don't excited with me
> that you do not understand.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Typical. I can certainly count on you to misread everything. I posted a quote
> saying that everyone meditates even if their culture tells them they don't.
> And I post another saying that Americans don't need to go East for their
> mysticism because clap-trap free mysticism has always been apart of our
> culture. And so you think I was saying that meditation is clap-trap? No, that
> was Pirsig saying that meditation is natural, that it exists in our
> experience whether we realize it or call it by that name or not. And the
> second quote was Pirsig saying there's no reason to make a big fuss over
> mysticism, which, by the way, goes quite nicely with Pirsig's claim about DQ
> being simple and immediate, being direct everyday experience.
>
> And those quotes were posted to dispute your delusional self-regard as
> somehow special because you meditate. Those quotes were posted to dispute
> your taste for parroting exotic Eastern jargon that you don't really
> understand - as opposed to talking in the ordinary language of Pirsig or
> James. It's just clap-trap as camouflage. It's a pretentious pose and if it
> weren't you'd be making a hell of a lot more less because of it, not less.
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:09 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Marsha:
>>>
>>> You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see
>>> the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss,
>>> even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely
>>> insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have
>>> responded with a childish evasion.
>>>
>>> Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind
>>> of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then
>>> how can the whole intellectual level be defined as "a formalized
>>> subject/object level (SOM)"?
>>>
>>> How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like
>>> defining "food" as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie.
>>>
>>>
>>> And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first
>>> place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the
>>> ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and
>>> the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not
>>> to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to
>>> read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking.
>>> Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%.
>>>
>>> That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I
>>> characterized your reasoning as "spectacularly bad" and "spectacularly
>>> stupid" but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise
>>> explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could
>>> have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual
>>> substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult
>>> and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is
>>> there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean
>>> absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can
>>> cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without
>>> embarrassment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d.
>>>
>>> Therefore:
>>>
>>> Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in
>>> recent historic times?
>>>
>>> C'mon. Anyone can see how spectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's
>>> not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is
>>> very clear, no?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> 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
___
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
