One further caution for you Dave, he lives in Colorado. J
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:46 AM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ham said to John: > ...I received a personal note yesterday from someone named Tim who > "couldn't thank me enough" for introducing him to Donald Hoffman. He also > mentioned LS, but seemed to know me from the past. "I've always had a > great deal of respect for you," he wrote. I dimly recall conversing with a > Tim on this forum some years ago. Can you fill me in on who he is? > (Possibly a MoQ Discuss dropout?) > > John replied: > > He Didn't exactly drop out so much as was expelled. I also believe he was > moderated from LS (LilaSquad) He's a very bright boy but seems to have > problems with the social games required for communication, i.e., he thinks > everybody should put in a lot of work in understanding him, while going to > a lot of effort to make his writings obtuse. ...His big hero is: *George > Holmes Howison*(1834-1916) ...Tim was a doctoral student at Berkeley. > Anything else you wanna know? > > > dmb says: > I would recommend caution. He sends me long messages that are strangely > hostile and incoherent. He's equally fond of religion and obscenity, > apparently. Here's one of his opening paragraphs, for example addressed to > Dan, Pirsig and myself... > ------------------------------------------------ > DMB, Dan Glover, Bob M.P., > you uber-unrepentant motha'fucka's. Only if you had never had one > experience that differed from another would your "indivisible, undefinable > and unknowable Quality be a valid description of your eternally solitary > (non-dynamic) experience. However, if that were your experience, perfect > undifferentiation of any such Qualia, then the mere difference that would > be had in providing such a description would itself ruin your whole damned > metaphysical scheme. Your disgrace is beneath the dignity of every living > conscious being, even beneath the meager "clothing of the grass of the > field". If you remain so disturbingly unrepentant, my full prayers will be > that you shall experience the perfection of the depths of superphenomenal > prison. The superhenomenal, which you write off as "DQ", is the > conjunction of the noumenal and spiritual realms. Howison's greatest > disgrace (I can now say), is that his talk of the "eternal" somewhat > mirrors your write-it-off nature of "Quality". Of c > ourse he is not so fucking daft though; in so far as he talks about it > being timeless, he is perfectly clear that he means i[']deal, and that the > conception of time which he refers to is that if phenomenal time. In full > scheme of things, however, Time is complex; and it is (only) regarding the > phenomenally unregistered components of time in which the superphenomenal > is - and need must be - "temporally"-structured. Though I state this only > dogmatically here (and am not particularly interested even in developing > any such overwhelming proof as would demand that any and all serious > thinkers need must submit to my authority in the matter): the > superphenomenal is as an ideally structured fluid (I have said before). I > liken this equi-valently to Jay-z's saying "I traded in that gold for the > platinum Rolex". Start looking into the process of trading in your gold, I > suggest. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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
