On Aug 8, 2013, at 12:54 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > Marsha said: > > Does that second premise hold? > > 1. Marsha posts the quote "Kill all intellectual patterns." > 2. "Kill all intellectual patterns." is an anti-intellectual statement. > 3. Therefore, Marsha is an anti-intellectual. >
> The basic structure of an argument is > > A = B > B = C > Therefore, A = C > > Where the premises can be checked, and it can be seen that the conclusion, > indeed, follows from the premises. > > You bet, dmb, I have no interest in addressing your general and nebulous > complaints and criticisms. > dmb, Oh my, the argument was a bit of a parody, didn't you recognize it? > > > dmb says: > > The second premise is false (and the first premise isn't really a premise). > > If you're trying to formulate something like my argument, the first and > second premise should be combined. > > 1. Marsha mistakenly posts the quote, "kill all intellectual patterns," AS IF > it were an anti-intellectual statement. Yes, that's right. It is an unwarranted premise. > 2. The quote, taken in context, is not an anti-intellectual statement but > rather a statement about the perfection and mastery of intellectual static > quality for the purpose of raising rationality to art form. I didn't really take the second premise to be true. That was why I raised the question in the second post. I see the statement to "Kill all Intellectual patterns" is a reference to mediation/mindfulness, a statement I've made many times, where the conceptual (language) portion of mind is dropped. > 3. Marsha has misunderstood the quote and thereby come to a bogus, > anti-intellect conclusion. No, just like you so often do, I replaced logic with parody. It was like your little OZ parody, but nearly as creative or mean-spirited. > But of course syllogistic logic is a very ancient and very simple form. It's > an indifferent, trivial little machine that does no real work. Garbage in, > garbage out. And garbage in, garbage out is what I find your "specific criticisms" to be, unwarranted accusations. And why I wrote to Ant that "I can accept that dmb has different value judgements than mine as a result of our different histories and current patterns of values." And why yesterday I wrote to you "I'm not buying your rhetoric. ... I am not here to accept your interpretations, opinions and judgements [concerning the MoQ] as Holy Writ. I'll leave you to be as you are, and be with you own thoughts." And why I say to you now: Your thoughts are your own: they're not me, they are not mine. > And I'd bet big bucks that logic has nothing to do with it because, for you, > anti-intellectualism is always your premise AND your conclusion. Whether you'd bet big bucks or not, that statement is unwarranted. More dmb blarney. > There is no thinking or reading or interpreting involved in reaching your > position. You seem to take whatever flits through your mind as fact. That's a form of psychological naive realism. And your words represent empty rhetoric. > It's just an attitude for which you invent a whole series of incoherent > rationalizations. You have no actual arguments. More unwarranted statements. Do you expect me to respond to your baloney. - Why not let go of Marsha? You claim that you want the MD to promote philosophical discussion, but they seem to be beyond your ability to initiate. Marsha ___ 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
