Marsha said:
I was addressing Dynamic Quality as indivisible, undefinable and unknowable:
inderterminate. I was not addressing the philosophical problems associated
determinism/indeterminism. And I clearly stated that I was using the standard
dictionary definition. 1. not determinate; not precisely fixed in extent;
indefinite;uncertain. 2. not clear; vague. 3. not established. 4. not
settled or decided. ... I think the definition works well.
dmb says:
Well, that doesn't make any sense either. DQ is undefinable and intellectually
unknowable but it's directly known and not vague.
"Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will verify
without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an undeniably
low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is negative. This low
quality is not just a vague, wooly-headed, crypto-religious, metaphysical
abstraction. It is an experience." (LILA)
"Indeterminate" is a term we see in the Buddhist quotes that you like to post
and it's pretty clear that you are foolishly repeating the word even though you
don't understand what it means in a philosophical context. You literally don't
know what you're saying.
Marsha said:
I remember you writing that you owned a 4-volume set of books entitled
'Encyclopedia of Philosophy'. Thin ink on thin paper... Jargon and
philosophology do not make you and your posts more valuable; not to me.
dmb says:
Nope, never owned a 4-volume encyclopedia and never said that I do. I like the
Stanford encyclopedia and Wikipedia is often good enough.
Thin ink on thin paper, eh? You don't care about jargon or philosophology, eh?
See, this is the kind of stuff that makes you so profoundly anti-intellectual.
Given the present context - your misuse of a philosophical term in a
philosophical discussion group - what you really seem to be saying it that you
are ignorant of the topic on which you are speaking and you fully intend to
remain ignorant. You even seem to be saying that you are proud of being so
ignorant, that misusing terms and making contradictory statement is some kind
of virtue. Sour grapes, I guess.
It's okay if you understand why your views are so mixed up so long as the
capable participants can see that you are not to be taken seriously. I don't
really care how you react so long as my point is understood by the folks who
are actually interested in a philosophical discussion of the MOQ.
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
