Dmb,
Spoken like a true philosophologist who tends to play contextual-evidence
bingo, not chess, and who inflates his gibberish by speaking jargonese. And
Ron, of the anger issues/temper tantrums, can hardly represent himself as a
model of critical thinking. He's likely would label someone thinking
critically if, and only if, they agreed with him.
Carry on boys; state how RMP says the same as James (or more like what
Hildebrand, Granger, Stuhr, Hickman, Anderson, Richardson and 'Charlene' think
James) says, or how RMP says the same as Nietzsche says, or is like what
Aristotle says... Never mind that RMP says "Remember that the central reality
of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else. It is understood by
direct experience only and not by reasoning of any kind." Never mind advising
such a strategy: "The purpose of mystic meditation is not to remove oneself
from experience but to bring one's self closer to it by eliminating stale,
confusing, static, intellectual attachments of the past."
Marsha
p.s. Even James wrote: “Introspective observation is what we have to rely on
first and foremost and always. I regard the belief [in introspection] as the
most fundamental of all the postulates of Psychology”
(W. James, 1890)
On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:58 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ron said to Marsha:
>
> Can YOU read? Philosophology is done by people who are not seeking to
> understand what is written, only to classify it so they can dismiss it (a
> form of the strawman device). But what should be noted is the lack of will to
> understand what someone means. That pretty much sums up your rhetorical style
> Marsha, even the aim at which this post is supposed to dismiss Dave's
> comparison of William James, Robert Pirsig and Fred Nietzche. He does not
> compare them to dismiss Pirsig he does so to clarify their meaning. To
> support Pirsig's conclusions not dismiss them. But YOU on the other hand are
> using this quote philosophologicaly, so can dismiss Dave without actually
> having a philosophical explanation supporting that dismissal. Lazy and
> hypocritical. Not to mention a poor display of critical thinking skills. As
> usual.
>
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Exactly. Marsha's tactics are lazy, sloppy and hypocritical. She uses her
> vacuous relativism to dismiss and evade each and every criticism, to avoid
> engagement with any philosophical content. And then she has the gall to quote
> Pirsig's criticism of her own views in an attempt to find support for her
> anti-intellectual nonsense. It's despicable.
>
>
> It doesn't take a mind reader to see what she's trying to do here. It's
> really about the other thread (Concepts and Reality). She knows that the
> distinction being examined there is the MOQ's central distinction, the
> static/Dynamic distinction, and she knows that I've been attacking her
> misunderstanding of this distinction for a long time. That is exactly what
> she is "not seeking to understand," and she wants to do anything but
> "understand what is written". She does not want the MOQ's central distinction
> to be explained or illuminated in any way and actively seeks to shut down any
> attempt to do so. Apparently this is just egotistical, face-saving bullshit
> and is not motivated by the desire to defend or criticize any actual ideas.
>
> Did you notice her ridiculously hostile response to the first post in that
> thread (Concepts and Reality)? That first post simply put a Pirsig quote next
> to a Nietzsche quote and I said absolutely nothing except, "compare and
> discuss". And what was Marsha's response to this open invitation?
>
>
> Marsha said to dmb:
> Why don't YOU compare and discuss? Or is it your nature to rather project,
> misrepresent, spout sarcasm, irony, parody & insults when other compare and
> discuss.
>
>
> I guess that's supposed to be some kind of pre-emptive strike. She wants to
> undermine and dismiss the whole discussion before it even starts. She wants
> to evade any discussion of the distinction that James and Pirsig make, the
> discrepancy between concepts and reality, because she knows that any honest
> and intelligent discussion of it will destroy her distorted, nihilistic and
> incoherent reading of the MOQ. Rather than deal with the often-repeated
> criticism, she consistently takes the lazy and dishonest way out. She sits in
> the chess club but refuses to play and is only there to insult not only the
> players but also the game of chess itself. That exactly what makes her such a
> despicable troll.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
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
