Hi All
John Dewey on constant change:
http://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Dewey_change_css.html
All electromagnetic waves, i.e. everything, of course show both
wave patterns and are constantly changing or oscillating. I have
no idea what DMB is talking about. He should get out more.
David M
-----Original Message-----
From: david buchanan
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:24 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] philosophology
Marsha said:
It is not a contradiction to understand that patterns may maintain a static,
stable identity at the same time as they and their context are undergoing
constant change. Think of the Ship of Theseus, or a parade (Hume) where
everyone drops out but is replaced so that the parade is maintained, or the
body with its cells constantly being replaced. Things can change - flow -
and yet have stabilty; think of a river.
dmb says:
Yes, it is a contradiction. Nothing can maintain a static, stable identity
and also constantly change. The ship of Theseus and the Parade of Hume are
objects and the question is riddles are about the essences of objects. Your
contradiction is a matter of equating opposed concepts, concepts that are
define in opposition to each other. The cells in your body are constantly
being replaced but the concepts "cell" and "body" remain stable. Even your
"defense" displays the same confusion between concepts and reality. That's
the difference between static patterns and Dynamic Quality.
Will you never get this point? Reality is ever-changing and concepts are not
reality. The MOQ and its concepts, like all philosophies, static
intellectual quality, not reality. Some people can learn faster than others
and that's fine. But this level of incorrigibility can't be explained by the
standard variations in intelligence. Your case is so extreme that there must
be a fairly serious psychological problem at work here. Whatever the cause
might be, the effect is a constant stream of interruptions and diversions.
You, Marsha, just cannot or will not play this game we call philosophy. I
think we can have compassion for your plight and still fully recognize that
you are turd in the punchbowl.
Marsha, your attitude is hateful and irresponsible and amoral. And the
actual conceptual content is just incoherent drivel. It's an embarrassment.
What did Robert Pirsig ever do to you, Marsha, that cause you to abuse his
work like this? What did the English language ever do to deserve this
torture? Why do you constantly condemn intellectuals, academic philosophers
and William James and then act like this is Pirsig's attitude too? It's
obviously not. That's just a reflection of your own anti-intellectualism,
resentment, jealousy and fondness for evasion. It's pure bullshit. And it's
merely personal too. You just can't stand the idea that I could correct your
misunderstanding. Your constantly evasions and dismissals. Lucy. are empty,
irrational, ego-driven nonsense. You think you can win the argument through
sheer repetition, as if posting your contradictory drivel over and over
again will somehow make it coherent. It won't.
The MOQ is logically consistent but you, Marsha, are not. Not even close.
Don't get me wrong. It's NOT that I'm a huge fan of logic. It's just that
you, Marsha, have a serious problem meeting the most basic standards of
thought and speech. I'd really rather be talking about something more
interesting than contradictory sentences and the meaning of the MOQ's basic
terms but that's just the nature your problem whether I like it or not.
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
