> djh responds to Dmb:
>
> I think you're both correct and incorrect here. You're correct that Mysticism
> and Intellectual quality do indeed work together. But the key point here is
> that they work together by being mutually exclusive and in opposition!
>
> [Ron]
> So you criticize Dmb for being a dialectician and then you assert dialectical
> opposition in your explanations, THAT has
> a whole set of consequences embedded in dichotomy, negation, ect...{serve up
> some Ham)
>
> djh responds:
>
> Well as I've said repeatedly - ultimately definitions are degenerate but does
> that mean we shouldn't define? Is that even possible? I don't think it is so
> I think something better to be interested in (rather than trying to avoid
> degeneracy) is looking at what's good. What's good intellectually? There's an
> interesting question!
>
> [Ron replies]
> But that has been the question, what is good intellectually and every
> arguement you counter with attacks that question dialecticly
> in opposition to it. Now that is interesting...is that what you guys see
> yourself as playing? dialectical opposition?
djh responds to Ron:
I don't know who you mean by 'you guys' but no, that's not what I'm 'playing'.
I'm here to discuss the MOQ intellectually and as a result become a better
person. As part of this discussion there will inevitably be disagreements.
Simply disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that I see my view as ultimately
correct and their view ultimately incorrect as a dialectician might. A true
understanding of someone won't happen unless you look at what they value.
Traditional dialectic ignores folks values and so I think the MOQ is better in
that it provides us with a language in which we can intellectually discuss
these values and discuss quite simply - what's good.
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
