Ian had said:
...And again, just to be clear, to recap, it's the discourse - the expression
and argument - I'm talking about, not the underlying metaphysics, where I think
we're all clear on MoQ-101, the primary S/O vs primary Q/DQ distinction.
Ron replied:
The foundation of any expression and arguement lies in its underlying
metaphysics (our system of belief). I think suggesting we can divorce them is a
move away from taking any responsibilty for your argument. We are not at all
clear on MoQ-101. In fact it is what this dialog is all about. For example the
very notion of "disentanglement" of (Low quality-SOM) as you equate, from
(high quality MoQ-ish) expresses a misunderstanding of MoQ-101.
dmb says:
Yes, sadly, to be confused about the difference between the MOQ and SOM is to
be confused about the basics. It's not super easy or anything but this is one
of the basic starting points. If you go wrong at the beginning there is very
little chance of understanding the rest. Although Marsha and Ian don't care to
entertain the possibility that they could be wrong about the basics, that is my
contention and it has been for a long time. Marsha and Ian have both been
caught red-handed committing this mistake, so to speak, but they both insist
there is no problem anyway. And in both cases, the reasons and evidence
presented to them remains unchallenged and unaddressed. The volume of material
ignored by these two is such that I could gather it up and make a book out of
it, a fairly thick book. And yet here we are talking about MOQ 101, still
trying to discern the difference between SOM (the disease) and the MOQ (the
cure).
Ron said to Ian:
Lets take a look at your skills in reading comprehension for example: dmb said
to Ian, "Dude, you've announced your agreement with one bland statement and
totally ignored the rest. Why ask the question if you're just going to ignore
the answer?" and Ian replied, saying, "You say agreement is "bland". To me
agreement is something positive worth noting,.."
Ron continued:
Notice Ian, Dave never said "agreement is bland". He said "you announced your
agreement with one bland statement." He specifically stated your statement was
bland. ....
dmb says:
This isn't a very important point but it does speak to the need for us all to
write and read carefully.
I did not mean to say that agreement is bland or that Ian's statement of
agreement was bland. The term "bland" was used to describe my own statement. I
was complaining that Ian responded to only one of my sentences and it was a
bland, introductory sentence in which I had said very little. It was just one
more way to complain about the lack of substance in Ian's response. Look....
I said to Ian, "Dude, you've announced your agreement with one bland statement
and totally ignored the rest. Why ask the question if you're just going to
ignore the answer? Don't you have anything to say about the quotes and
explanations I offered? If it's not what you're looking for, then what are you
asking? How did my answers fail to address your question?" And then a few lines
later, I made the same complaint again. I reposted the entire thing and said to
Ian, "here's the part you did not mention at all, which is all of my post
except for that one boring, introductory sentence. It would be nice if you read
it, thought about and responded to it with some coherent thoughts of your own."
That still has not happened. In fact, I can't recall any legitimate responses
from Ian or Marsha. It's weird. It's like they think you can just wave a flag
and say "hurrah" and that makes you a philosopher or a MOQ. Apparently, they
love philosophy except for that part where you have to think and speak and
otherwise grapple with ideas.
MOQ 101.
Sigh.
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
