Arlo, Notice there is nothing in any of the quotes provided by Ron that equates to your statement "Like Marsha ... seem to think incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns.", and that is what I was denying. That is what I asked you to provide the proof for. I have stated many times that I am not against intellectual patterns.
As for the rest, because the topic is a verboten, I'll leave it behind. I'd only be repeating myself to keep this discussion with you going. It's time to move on. I'm not really interested in playing football. Marsha On Aug 14, 2013, at 6:36 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR wrote: > [Marsha] > 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. > > [Arlo] > No, Marsha, its not "based on this". Its based on the fact that DESPITE this > you continue to make comments implying intellect is equivalent to SOM, that > you continue to refute intellectual quality as anything more than > 'reification', avoid criticisms to incoherent comments by evoking a > nihilistic relativism. > > I'll choose but one of the quotes Ron just posted and start with this: > Marsha on May 1, 2009: > "Bo is correct in thinking it would be best to describe the Intellectual > Level as the S/O level. It seems to me that all these levels contain > patterns that represent conceptually constructed entities of both the general > and particular type, and that as concepts they are all a product of a > post-s/o thinking. And patterns in the Intellectual Level include the > awareness of having separated subject from object. OMG, that feels good. > Now it's time to go off dancing with a moon shadow for a while." > > A few days ago you posted this: "I think that Paul Turner's two-context > thesis points to the MoQ as a representation of a budding new level" (which > is Bo's idea, that you say above is correct), but when called on this replied > "I don't need to discuss what think, and it has nothing to do with Bo." > > See that? Its not people chasing down and demanding you articulate your idea > about the intellectual level, and you having to calming remind everyone you > are 'forbidden' to discuss it. Everyone knows you think intellect=SOM, its > the evasions about this when you are called on it. > > In the above example, YOU brought it up with your "new level" comment, YOU > immediately got hostile "Of course, I want no complaining that I won't > discuss what I think. Arlo, what deep philosophical topic for discussion are > you going to present?", "And I had asked you, Arlo, what deep philosophical > topic were you going to present for discussion? Your choice of a topic was > not very original or deep or interesting." when you were called on it, and > then tried to play stupid, "If there is, indeed, a point of similarity > between my thinking and Bo's SOL, that would not prove that they are one in > the same." > > I liked that last one, like people are too dumb to remember the history of > your posts, or unable to go back and find evidence. > > "Bo is correct in thinking it would be best to describe the Intellectual > Level as the S/O level." > "If there is, indeed, a point of similarity between my thinking and Bo's > SOL..." > > That. Right there, is but one example of the evasion, of the ever-regressing > football, of the hostile baiting over repeated comments that treat intellect > as if its nothing more than SOM. > > And now you want to "sing the bull to sleep"? Sorry, Marsha, "But [its] way > too late for lullabies like that." > ___ 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
