Marsha to Andre: I am not denigrating anybody. I suggest you stop listening to the voice in your head. It doesn't know what I am thinking.
Andre: This made me chuckle. I read your posts though. What you write is not what you think? Marsha: Considering something having a flaw is not denigration. Possibly "the pretence of science itself to consider itself ?objective? (meaning value free)" might be considered a flaw. 'Pretense' being a type of pretending. But, of course, the MoQ rectifies this by demonstrating that this 'objective' pretence is untrue. Andre: This made me laugh. And really wonder where the flaw is situated. YOU keep on bringing it up and somehow adhering to it...if I may lump the; language is a cage, DQ is a cage, sq is a cage, reification representing how 'the common man...think' in with it. Have you ever considered that Pirsig's version of his MOQ is better that your version of his MOQ? Perhaps you could listen to his version some more...and we'll forget about the 'pretense'. Talking about pretense. How the heck do you know what 'the common man' thinks? Since you seem to claim that nobody knows what you are thinking. Who the heck do you think you are? (don't bother answering this Marsha...an ever changing blah blah blah.) Marsha: The term 'many' as in my phrase "many scientists" represents a particular affirmative not a universal affirmative. So, of course, not all scientists have a subject-object metaphysical view. Andre: Now I am on the floor of course remembering the bucket. 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
