dmb, I still do not consider you or your words significant. No, I will not leave. Your performance is not dependent on me one way or the other. You are free to present and discuss and argue on whatever topic interests you.
Marsha p.s. The actual text between Krimel and Carrie and your misrepresentation of the exchance is at the bottom. On Mar 22, 2013, at 11:33 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marsha said to dmb: > ...your motorcycle, like many of your arguments (see clear example below), is > missing some major parts. > Marsha'a example: > > > > In the thread titled "Definitions", dmb said to Krimel: > > > ...that's just a weird application of your scientific nihilism and it has > nothing to do with Pirsig's refusal to define the MOQ's central term. Using > "dog" interchangeably with "Quality" or the "Tao" would be provocative and > edgy if it made any sense at all. Let me see if I follow your reasoning > here, Krimel. As I read it, you are saying, A) Dogs and everything else, > including definitions, cannot be defined any more than the indefinable, > mystical reality can. B) Therefore, you are not required to use words > correctly or otherwise make sense when discussing philosophy. > > > > dmb now replies to Marsha: > > I don't know what "major parts" are missing from this "argument" but you > should realize that it's not my argument. I was summarizing the argument made > by Krimel and you, as it happens. I was mocking the bullshit argument that > you and Krimel use to evade the, apparently overwhelming, responsibility of > making sense. > > How delicious that you would mistake a parody of yourself for my bad > argument. > > You have no business here, you confused troll. Go away. Subject: Re: [MD] Definitions On Mar 15, 2013, at 12:51 AM, david buchanan wrote: Carrie said to Krimel: ...But while quality is defined as undefinable, we all do have an idea of what it means to do good. And what it means to just randomnly do any old thing. We have common understanding of the terms that seems to say they are opposite one another. Krimel replied: ...the issue of definition is important. I think widely over stated and misunderstood. I think the problem is not confined to Quality. As I said a while back in another thread. The dog that can be named is not the constant dog. Definitions are never absolute. They are always fuzzy. They indicate they do not prescribe. dmb says: No, that's just a weird application of your scientific nihilism and it has nothing to do with Pirsig's refusal to define the MOQ's central term. Using "dog" interchangeably with "Quality" or the "Tao" would be provocative and edgy if it made any sense at all. Let me see if I follow your reasoning here, Krimel. As I read it, you are saying, A) Dogs and everything else, including definitions, cannot be defined any more than the indefinable, mystical reality can. B) Therefore, you are not required to use words correctly or otherwise make sense when discussing philosophy. 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
