On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello everyone > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > Dan: > > Mark, you obviously have A LOT of catching up to do before we can hold > a reasonable discussion. Subject/object metaphysics holds that there > are only a subject observing objects. Period. Reading your posts, I > don't see that you've grasped that. When you ask: When is it that > something enters the SOM realm... something doesn't enter the SOM > realm. There isn't "something" out there called SOM. That is the > fallacy that Robert Pirsig tried to correct with his Metaphysics of > Quality. > > And for the record, I am not being silly. It is your lack of > understanding that makes it seem so. Next thing you'll be calling me a > retard, I suppose. Not this, not that has nothing to do with the > definition of the intellectual level. Honestly, I am not teacher, > Mark. I have very little patience with people who bounce in on their > high horse spouting how smart they are. A good scientist would do the > research... read the archives for starters... read Anthony McWatt's > work... read LILA and ZMM... and if you claim to have read them, read > them again. You haven't got the message. > > Dan > > > > > 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 > [Mark] Hi Dan, Is that all you've got? Hmmm...Intellectual indeed. Is that what you call answers? Well, then, my only response is: Go back to your master, you effing rottweiler! You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy. Stop your pathetic snarling on these airwaves! Don't come back until you have something productive to bark about! Go now, shoo,shoo. That's a good boy. Mark >> 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
