Hi Dan, Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that I have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by definition. When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to be a lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually using SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from the other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there is no separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to translate such an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that are not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, in metaphysical terms of its arising would be most useful. It appears that Marsha is attempting to define such boundaries. Could you please define yours, and stop being so silly about it? I would like to see you defend your rationale without resorting to some nonsensical not this not that.
Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > 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 s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? > It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it > is very clear, no? > > Dan comments: > > Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to define > the intellectual level as something it is obviously not, at least not > in the framework of the MOQ. SOM as intellect (and I don't care how it > is clothed, it is still SOM as intellect) is an unreasonable position > that leads to nonsensical conclusions that any serious thinker is > bound to reject. It is frustrating to spend so much time on this, > especially when Marsha claims to be interested in Buddhist philopophy > and how it relates to the MOQ. Why on earth would I even bother > getting drawn into another discussion with her when I already know > what the end result will be? > > I've tried to engage both her and John in an intelligent discussion > but failed. Maybe it's me. Unlike others here, I am not going to > trumpet how smart I am. Yet I have really tried, only to be met with > silliness, insults, and the same old stale cup of tea that has been > swishing around here for years. Now we've got an umemployed > "scientist" clogging up the airwaves with more foolishness. Oh boy. > Isn't it fun. Please find work soon. > > So, no, it is not just you, David. Just so you know, > > Dan > 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
