Hello everyone On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:12 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ron: >> If all you are going to do is point to one small quote to support your >>criticism >> then that sort of thing is going to happen in a discussion. > > Dan: > > I think you're being quite unfair. I've written a number of posts > concerning free will vs determinism. The "one small quote" is really > what this is all about. If you want to believe in free will, fine. > Believe in it But the MOQ says what the MOQ says. That's what it > boils down to. You disagree with the MOQ. And I guess since I agree > with the MOQ, you also disagree with me. > .Ron: > See Dan, this is where we run into problems you are associating your point of > view with > THE MoQ and thats bullshit plain and simple, No reasonable person would do > that. > Bodvar did that, so did Platt. > Exactly what makes your interpretation any truer than anyone elses? apparently > you believe you understand RMP's work exactly how he meant it and that this > understanding > is independent of interpretation. Thats quite a ballsy stance on a philosophy > forum. > > This statement about says it all about our conflict: > "But the MOQ says what the MOQ says. That's what it > boils down to. You disagree with the MOQ. And I guess since I agree > with the MOQ, you also disagree with me." > > I maintain that you do not agree with the MoQ Dan. > > > > Dan: > John chastised me for repeatedly bringing up the hot stove experiment. > But he still doesn't get it, as evidenced by his lastest Dynamic > Quality equals the future post. I don't know what else to do, Ron. I > am not a teacher. If someone doesn't get it, I tend to keep repeating > myself in hopes that, maybe, eventually, they will get it. Maybe > there is a better way. But I don't know that way. Teach me. > > Thank you for your time, > > Ron: > Kind of like those people who think if they speak English loud enough > and slow enough, somehow it will be translated into another language.
Dan: Or kind of like those people who act rudely at the expense of others on account of not understanding what they are saying. Ron: > First off, you are claiming interpretive legitimacy. Case closed, the MoQ says > what it says, end of discussion. Everyone understands english. Dan: I am claiming nothing of the sort. You are making the claims here. >Ron: > Dan, you need to explain why you believe you are correct in your > interpretation Dan: I'm sorry, Ron, but I don't "need" to do anything. Ron: > So far you have yet to do so but that can't happen unless you suspend the > notion > that the MoQ stands independently in meaning and is not subject to > interpretation > to each person who reads it. Dan: There is a proper way to interpret the MOQ. I've been over this before and see no reason to do it again. There is nothing in the universe that exists independently, Ron. You know better. >Ron: > The best way to make an argument is to build a continuity of overall meaning, > linking the application of those general meanings to several contexts via > multiple > quotes. The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, > and economy of explanation. It should also stand up to Pragmatic method. Dan: And if you've been reading my posts (which I doubt) you'll see that I've done all you ask. I know you disagree with me and the MOQ but there is no reason to be rude. >Ron: > Just explain why you feel you are correct instaed of beating us over the head > with a quote that you think requires no explanation. Dan: Every quote I've offered is accompanied by my own commentary. Go back and look. I can't help it if you don't understand. I think our discussion is over. I have other pressing matters to attend, and I can see this is a total waste of time. Thank you, 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
