Just like to confirm that I am disputing the way DMB is defining the key terms of the MOQ, and claim that the way DMB is describing them fails to account for ordinary experience and is inconsistent, simply claiming as DMB does, that the way he describes the SQ/DQ distinction is the only and best way to do so is pure dogmatism and utterly evasive and a total waste of time. Hope anyone honest can see that.
All the best David M david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: >Horse said to David Morey: > >It appears you don't read what others write. There are no patterns in DQ. All >patterns are SQ. SQ is fourfold - Inorganic, Biological, Social, Intellectual. >Concepts, precepts, tastes, senses are SQ. All THINGS are SQ. SQ is >post-Experience (post-DQ). DMB is saying the same as Andre and myself - why >are you unable to see this. > > > >David Morey replied to Horse: > >Rather you are not reading me carefully enough, I accept conceptual patterns, > these are SQ we all agree. But I also say percepts are pre-conceptual and >patterned, I am perfectly happy to see percepts as SQ and all DQ as >unpatterned, but this gives us pre-conceptual and conceptual SQ, it is DMB >who thinks all SQ is conceptual not me. So where do you disagree with me? > > > >dmb says: > >Okay, DM, if you are sincerely interested in improving the quality of this >debate then the first thing to do is STOP producing run-on sentences and >oxymoronic phrases. Your writing is really, really awful and you are >constantly speaking in contradictory terms. For example, your phrase, >"unconceptual but patterned SQ" is pure nonsense because "patterned" MEANS >conceptual. So your phrase reads as either "unconceptual but conceptual" or >"unpatterned but patterned". See? It's just contradictory nonsense like "dry >wetness" or "hot coldness". Phrases like this are so stupid that it makes me >cringe like I'm hearing fingernails on a chalk board. And so it is with your >other oxymoronic phrases and claims such as, "percepts are patterned and >pre-conceptual". That is contradictory nonsense for exactly the same reason. >There are many examples like that. When you say, "surely they begin in forms >that are pre-conceptual, yes there is distinction and differentiation here", >you are simply > defying the meaning of the terms. I've have pointed this out many, many times > and yet you says you are "amazed this cannot simply be accepted". Why can you > not acknowledge this critical mistake? It's so, so simple! You are equating > opposed terms and there is no freaking way you're ever going to make sense of > this until you stop with the oxymoronic drivel. It's just plain dumb, David! > This is WHY people are suggesting that you cannot read. > >Do you understand why it's so utterly and hopelessly wrong to say, as you did, >that "the MOQ would be better served by recognising pre-conceptual SQ"? That's >like saying the MOQ would be better served by recognizing pre-conceptual >concepts and so it is not just an incorrect way to understand the MOQ, it is >just meaningless nonsense.There is no such thing as a preconceptual concept. >Don't you see how that is a logically impossible phrase? > >I've tried to be relatively polite about, but dude, your contradictory phrases >are really embarrassing. No matter how many times I explain this, you just >keep committing this same blatant stupidity. I can't read your posts without >cringing - usually about ten times. And would it kill you to write a proper >sentence? > >You keep blaming everyone else, as if it were some kind of mistake to reject >such nonsense. No, it would be a mistake to accept logically impossible >drivel. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about the MOQ, then >you have to start using the key terms properly. As it now stands, you are >simply not making any sense. I've been telling you this for months and yet you >just keep waving this giant flag of stupidity. > >Nobody worth talking to is going to be interested in your ideas about >unpatterned patterns or preconceptual concepts because there cannot be any >such thing. Whatever it is you think you are talking about, you cannot call it >that and also expect to be taken seriously. You might as well make your case >for frozen fire or tiny giants. That would be almost as absurd as the case >you're already making. > > > > >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 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
