Tim:
I gotta be honest. I am very rapidly loosing any respect for your judgment...
You said:
Words and Concepts CANNOT BE DEFINED! ...I will ask you to define the words
that you used to define your chosen word/concept. When you have done that, I
will ask you to define all those words. Do you think this will end?
dmb says:
So what if questions never end? That doesn't mean words can't be defined. It
means words CAN be defined indefinitely. It means that words derive their
meaning by virtue of their relationship to all the other words in the language
- and by virtue of the context in which they're used.
You said:
No, David, if you are to be turned off from Marsha it should not be here; this
is quite in line with the thinking of the best minds the human race has ever
known!
dmb says:
If that were true my objections would be very easy to OVERCOME but they've
never been addressed at all. You haven't even mentioned them and Marsha has a
very strict policy of telling me how much she doesn't care instead of actually
responding like a grown up or otherwise clarifying her claims. But you go right
ahead and explain to me how static patterns are neither static nor patterned.
I'm listening.
See, she's had a zillion chances to clarify but she just foolishly repeats the
same thing over and over, probably because she's just parroting something that
sounds good but which she really doesn't understand. She doesn't really mean
that static patterns are ever-changing. She just means they are not eternal,
that they are subject to change, that they are mutable. To say something is
ever-changing, for those of us who speak english, is to say there is a total
absence of stability, that it is in no way static or patterned. And this part
of her definition of static patterns! C'mon on! You don't see how that's a
problem, logically and conceptually?
You said:
Where I feel repelled (the hateful repugnance of buddhism), and where I had
thought your source of repulsion came from, is the fact that she refuses to
permit that little white bit of solidity to enter into her black part! (I
offer that "Quality" is a pretty good attempts, but it only REALLY works - a la
"truth" in "experience", Marsha - if it is recognized that there is only ONE
quality which can play central role: "I am". - but I'll take your "no" and shut
up on that now, David.)
dmb says:
What? I love Buddhism. I find it neither repugnant nor hateful. Marsha is the
source of my repulsion, and it's certainly not because she likes Buddhism.
That's her ONLY redeeming quality, as far as I can tell. If you don't know why
I have a sour attitude toward her it's probably just because there are so many
exchanges you haven't seen. As with Bo, Marsha is impervious to reason and
evidence and maintains her position on the basis of nothing but sheer tenacity.
It's only natural to get irritated by such unreasonable behavior. If you saw
the whole history of these exchanges I think you might even be a little bit
impressed at how patient I've been.
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
