On Nov 9, 2011, at 12:42 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > dmb says: > > Huh? I just meant that your denials insult my intelligence. It's not about > your freedom. It's just about denying your own claims and statements. It's > not about philosophology. It's just about you pretending that you weren't > playing along with Marsha's imaginary contradiction. "Seriously" was your > word for how it ought to be taken. >
Hi dmb, I did not present the 2005 quote as a RMP contradiction. I presented the October 2005 quote as an updated view that RMP does not want the MoQ to fall within any philosophic tradition. - Maybe you can state how I presented a contradiction, rather RMP in October 2005 setting the record straight. Maybe you do not understand 'contradiction.' It seems I do remember you accusing me of a contradiction once before, but then one side of that contradiction you represented as mine was a pure, trumped-up fabrication where you could not produce the evidence that I made such a statement. I remember. I asked over and over and over again for you to produce the supposed statement, and, of course, you could not. > > RMP (2005): > "The Metaphysics of Quality is not intended to be within any philosophic > tradition, although obviously it was not written in a vacuum. ... The > Metaphysics of Quality's central idea that the world is nothing but value is > not part of any philosophic tradition that I know of. I have proposed it > because it seems to me that when you look into it carefully it makes more > sense than all the other things the world is supposed to be composed of. One > particular strength lies in its applicability to quantum physics, where > substance has been dismissed but nothing except arcane mathematical formulae > has really replaced it." (RMP, 'A Brief Summary of the MOQ') > 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
