Hi David,
On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:14 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.. Oh my, do you mean that I might be interested in where value/morals (patterns) come from? I am also interested in the nature of all patterns and what individual patterns value. Marsha > > 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
