On Jul 11, 2011, at 6:04 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > Thanks Marsha, > > If that is what Steve is saying, then I'm good with that. As you say, > let Steve speak. > > (Arguing that point with those who are on the academic intellectual - > church of reason - trip is patently not a good strategy, unless your > objective is insanity. There but for the grace .... etc.)
Hmmm. I don't find those who resort to ad hominem attacks to be very intellectual, certainly not in an academic way. If anything, they are trying to hide their own intellectual incompetence. They are nothing to fear, especially if one is not too vested in one's own ego. And I take RMP's admonition to 'still' all intellectual patterns to be good advice and a good note on which to end LILA. Marsha > Ian > PS What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding. > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:58 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Ian, >> >> I'm sorry, your point was extremely important. This Church of Reason >> has gotten pretty nasty. - I had been interpreting Steve as saying that >> a strategy for becoming more dynamically aware was a better question >> to be asking. It was on my mind. I wanted to hear your thoughts. I guess >> it would be better to have Steve answer. >> >> Really sorry, as always, your point was absolutely on target and needed >> to be said. Those of us who think too much can be such blockheads. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: >> >>> Oh and by the way, >>> well done again for turning the subject immediately away from the >>> point I did make. >>> Ian >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:05 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dan responded to Steve: >>>>> >>>>> [Dan] You (Steve) said: The question of free will versus determinism >>>>> gets replaced >>>>> by the question, to what extent do we follow DQ and to what extent do >>>>> we follow sq? >>>>> >>>>> [Dan] It appears from reading this that these are two mutually exclusive >>>>> options, hence my observation that they are not. >>>>> >>>>> Huh, Dan ? "to what extent" A and/or B suggests the exact opposite of >>>>> mutual exclusivity. It correctly implies you generally have a mix of >>>>> both side by side. >>>>> >>>>> I don't in fact agree with Steve's underlying analogy between DQ/sq >>>>> and Free-Will / Determinism, or DMB's suggestion that causation is >>>>> part of one but not the other, .... causation is just weird and >>>>> conventional linguistically .... I'm just pointing out the flaws in >>>>> the style of argumentation that is happening - in the church of >>>>> reason, as has been pointed out. >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>>> PS What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian, >>>> >>>> Do you think Steve is replacing the issues, or just stating that its a >>>> better >>>> question to be asking since the free-will vs. determinism platypus has >>>> been removed? >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> ___ >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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
