Dmb,
As you know, I have been told not to write about my understanding of the
Intellectual Level. It was a request made in late 2010 by Horse, which you are
well aware of. If the accusation of evasion is based on this, I will admit
that it is a topic that I avoid.
I would love to hear your interpretation of the Intellectual Level. I've asked
you a number of times to explain it, but you have evaded presenting an
explanation. Please explain.
Marsha
On Aug 13, 2013, at 7:51 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> ARLO said to Ian:
> Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free
> oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns.
>
>
>
> Marsha denied the accusation:
>
> Provide proof that I ever made a statement that "incoherence is a necessary
> 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns."
>
>
> dmb said to Marsha:
> Arlo and I are both complaining about a very specific and concrete example of
> sloppy gibberish. Like I said, if Ian didn't mean to equate context two with
> narrow SOMist thinking, then he is a very bad writer because that's what his
> sentence means. Arlo and I both quoted this specific example, among others,
> wherein Ian expressed his concern for "allowing a narrow SOMist (Context 2)
> view of intellect to dominate." Do you have anything relevant to say about
> the substance of the matter?
>
>
> Marsha denied the accusation again:
> ...As my name was included in the paragraph, I can only state I made no such
> statement about Paul Turner's theory; I never mentioned SOM and there was no
> reason to put me into the statement with the "Like Marsha, you seem to think
> that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma
> of intellectual patterns."
>
> Arlo accused Marsha of evading the issue concerning SOM and the MOQ's
> intellect:
> My comment had nothing to do with Paul Turner's theory, and its being
> 'challenged' on the basis of an implied quote. Aside from the semantic
> reality that "seem to think" is not "say" or "mention", but ascertained from
> the dialogue, the substance of the comment, any one following along, or able
> to view the archives, will have no problem ascertaining its truth.
>
>
> Marsha denied that accusation too:
> Even if "any one following along" or "able to view the archives" came to such
> a conclusion, and there is no proof that anyone following along or reviewing
> the archives have come to that conclusion, that wouldn't make it true. It's a
> version of the "everybody knows" fallacy where one asserts that common
> knowledge must be true.
>
>
> Ron, as he put it, "took a quick 15 min to scan the archives and just
> randomly picking from the 2009-2010 selection. It did'nt take me long to find
> a quick summary of Marsha's point of view." If I wanted to spend a day or so
> I probably could reach the file size limit. But I think her last quote says
> it best.
>
>
>
> Marsha on May 11, 2009:
> "Where does it pertain to the conversation we were having? I was defending
> that patterns in the Intellectual Level were all of the subject/object
> variety. "
>
> snip...
___
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
