HI dmb, > Just one point, one without much bearing on the substance of the issue.... > > David H said to dmb: > Finally, as an aside - your frustrations with misunderstandings and > disagreements here I find rather curious.. Of course we are going to have > disagreements and struggle to explain our ideas so that others understand > them. This is what the MD is all about IMHO. We are here to explain our > understanding of the MOQ to others. If someone's ideas are better than my > own, I'll tell them. If I don't think what they say explains my experience > as good as it could I'll tell them. Philosophy discussion is never easy. But > I'd argue that through that struggle it's rewarding as well... > > dmb says: > > I'm not frustrated by disagreements and everybody knows that philosophical > issues are not easy to talk about. What bugs me are the little stupidities > like demanding evidence AFTER it has already been given several times, like > asking questions that have already been answered several times. It's the lazy > readers who make you say everything five times. That's what bugs me. It has > to put some kind of put-on because no fan of philosophy could be that bad at > reading. Frankly, I think it's contemptible, gumption-sucking bullshit and I > hate it.
The people who will get you to say things five times over are the mystics - Mark and Marsha - who do not value intellectual patterns of value as much as they value DQ. If you're making intellectual distinctions, they're not gonna listen because that's not their thing.. Their thing is where all those distinctions come from.. Furthermore, the major culprit for demanding evidence here is Marsha. This is because she sees us intellectuals as valuing the straw man of absolute truth. And 'no one can ever defend that' she figures, so her demands for proof are just her way of showing that one is never able to fully 'prove' their point. This is a major misunderstanding of the MOQ and anti-intellectual as we've both said.. If you're frustrated by that, then that's not surprising considering she is doing so in an *intellectual* forum.. And on the intellectual forum for one of the most beautiful ideas ever - the MOQ. No one likes to be subjected to this kind of ugliness… It's almost worth considering suggesting to Horse that a new rule to MD be created whereby one cannot be anti-intellectual for that is against the intellectual MOQ. However all that said, I think it's a mistake to think that I wouldn't ask for further explanation unless I didn't honestly misunderstand your point. I know for sure that Dan and myself both value intellectual distinctions. We both value evidence and logic and reason. If you repeat yourself, explaining your logic to someone who values intellectual distinctions, then 9 times outta 10 your explanations will be rewarding.. So, conflating what we say with what Mark and Marsha says is a huge mistake.. -David 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
