Hi Andre, all, On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Marsha to dmb: > > You sure don't now... Ad hominem attacks, and you say she says he says are > the best you can do. > > backing up her: > ... Of freewill, determinism and causation, I neither accept them nor reject > them. They are static patterns of value, sometimes useful illusions and > sometimes not. As static patterns of value, they are not Ultimately Real. > ... I can only repeat: I neither accept free-will, determinism& > causation, nor reject free-will, determinism& causation; they are static > patterns of value that have at times been considered useful illusions, but > are not Ultimately Real. > > Andre: > The foundation of your snotty behaviour in your bucket is that you appeal to > the 'ultimate' unreality of everything. This makes you nihilistic whilst > pretending to be so smart. Was Heroshima an illusion? Was Nagasaki not real? > Was this also an illusion? > > I am sure you wriggle out of this as well Marsha, perhaps suggesting it is > not this not that. But you come over to me as a very opportunistic and > therefore dishonest person...blowing with the wind.
Steve: It appears that you have bought into dmb's false claim that Marsha has merely weaseled out of making an argument. It may be true that Marsha sometimes makes such a retreat, but the irony is that in this case dmb resorted to an ad hominem to avoid having to respond to the argument that Marsha made. See below... Marsha previously: Right. Dmb is conflating the SOM and MoQ; they're two different metaphysics. The MOQ rejects the Cartesian self as a ridiculous fiction and replaces that concept of the self with the MOQ's concept of the self as a complex ecology of static patterns. The Cartesian self is the problem and the MOQ's self is the solution to that problem. But Dmb has confused and conflated these two concepts so that he ends up rejecting the MOQ's solution. Then the MOQ's solution, not to mention the author of the MOQ, is misconstrued as the ridiculous fiction. He can't distinguish between the poison and the antidote, between the wreckage and the repair job. dmb responded: Riddle me this, viking woman: What is the difference between a genuine paradox and your equivocating weasel words? One has a subtle and profound meaning while the other is merely evasive and has no meaning at all. Can you guess which is which? Steve: As ought to be clear from the above exchange, it is dmb who tried to weasel out by calling Marsha a weasel. As Marsha said, that seems to be the best he can do. 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
