John said to Andre:
...You think the MOQ experience can be confined to words and exact definitions.
You are sadly lost, my friend. And I doubt I can help you. I know the way out
of the dark wood you're in, but you don't like or trust me. There's not much I
can say. ...And here we are, less than 50 years latter, Andre-Buchanan can
utter the same idea, dressed in an "MOQ" blanket, and nobody on this forum but
I can see the great error, the huge mistake that is. ...A statement that
violates the very heart and spirit of the MoQ, That any sort of static pattern
holds the keys on "all there is to say”.
dmb says:
Huh? Just for the record, I certainly do NOT think that "experience can be
confined to words and exact definitions" or that "any sort of static pattern
holds the keys on 'all there is
to say'."
I guess this is just John's reaction to the very basic criticism from Andre and
Dan, both of whom have complained about John's misuse of the MOQ's term
"social," as in the social levels of values. I think that criticism is valid
and obvious while John's reaction to it is evasive, slanderous, and dishonest.
It seems he wants to construe the demand for well-defined and precisely used
concepts as a desire or attempt to define all of reality itself. That is either
a deliberate distortion or it is spectacularly ignorant. I'm not sure which is
worse. I guess he has to play such silly games because nobody in their right
mind thinks it's okay to misuse words and concepts in a philosophy forum.
What kind of person doesn't care about the proper use of words and concepts in
a philosophy forum? Un-be-lievable!
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
