Hi All
This discussion sounds to me a bit like a bunch of caveman who want to tie
down an escaped prisoner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2afuTvUzBQ
Kind regards
Eddo (prefers to be free thank you)
2013/7/29 MarshaV val...@att.net
David,
On Jul 29, 2013, at 12:04 AM, David Harding
Hi David (H), (David M mentioned)
David H you reminded us of:
The value of assuming things exist (before) we experience them.
Apart from the hierarchical / privileged use of the word before I'd
say spot on. Maybe I'd say as well as, at appropriate times,
rather than simply before.
This is of
Horse,
There isn't enough time in the word to respond to every point you made
earlier in this thread and as you pointed out I wasn't responding
directly to any question put to me anyway.
All I will says is, to your points about sloppiness and gibberish vs
clarity and precision:
Yes it's a
Horse,
There isn't enough time in the word to respond to every point you made
earlier in THIS thread and as you pointed out I wasn't responding
directly to any question put to me anyway.
All I will says is, to your points about sloppiness and gibberish vs
clarity and precision:
Yes it's a
Owen Barfield already said it pretty well (in Poetic Diction):
As the secondary imagination makes meaning,
so the primary imagination makes things.
Ian
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David (H), (David M mentioned)
David H you reminded us
djh:
I don't know I haven't been reading David Morey. But I'm not saying there is
only 'good reasons' in science to make assumptions. I'm saying that there
are good reasons (and we actually do this all the time) to make assumptions
that things exist before we experience them in our daily
Hi Ron,
[David]
But can you not see how this is against the MOQ which differs from Zen in
that the still values static patterns and the trail of evolution they
create?
[Marsha]
I value static patterns, and I am not sure that Zen does not value static
quality. Doesn't Buddhism warn
David,
On Jul 29, 2013, at 7:36 AM, David Harding wrote:
djh:
I don't know I haven't been reading David Morey. But I'm not saying there
is only 'good reasons' in science to make assumptions. I'm saying that
there are good reasons (and we actually do this all the time) to make
Hi,
This is my first submission to this discussion group, so please let me know if
I'm doing this incorrectly!
I'm a philosophy enthusiast, and from what I'm reading you're actually
referring premises, as these are the building blocks of reasoning, which forms
the basis of the scientific
Hi Ron and All,
I was shocked the other day to realize that I didn't know what I was
writing. My logic was totally words, without intellectual participation!
When I examined this further I realized that I was upset, I was not calm.
Logic stresses me in a discussion of the evolution of levels
David Harding said to Marsha:
“If we are to ever discuss metaphysics we have to 'pretend' that these static
qualities existed before we ever encountered them.” “This was the whole point
of Paul Turners two contexts. In the second context static quality exists
before we encounter it. In
[dmb]
Hmmm. I think David H has misconstrued the situation rather badly (and I'm
quite certain that Marsha has produced nothing but evasions and dismissals).
It's not just inaccurate to say that I'm trying to talk about the MOQ from
context 2 rather than context 1, I think it's a bit
Doctor Ant said to David Harding:
David, I rather like the phrase “pretend” here though “Context 2 of the MOQ”
(to use Paul’s terminology) is a little more than just pretending! If I’m
having critical surgery, I don’t want the surgeons just to be pretending; I
want them to be – at the very
[DMB]
For the second time today, I'll object to the notion that my position is
limited to just one of the two contexts.
[Arlo]
Yeah, I think this entire two contexts has been drawn into polar views, and I
doubt this is what David Morey intended (at least I didn't read this into his
writing).
djh said to Ant:
Ant - It is a good idea when talking with folks to change your words and even
your perspective to explain things to them. Despite her claims to the
contrary - Marsha fails to see the value of assuming things exist before we
experience them as we do in the second context.
[DMB]
For the second time today, I'll object to the notion that my position is
limited to just one of the two contexts.
[Arlo]
Yeah, I think this entire two contexts has been drawn into polar views, and
I doubt this is what David Morey intended (at least I didn't read this into
his
Hello everyone
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:50 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.eduwrote:
[DMB]
For the second time today, I'll object to the notion that my position is
limited to just one of the two contexts.
[Arlo]
Yeah, I think this entire two contexts has been drawn into polar
17 matches
Mail list logo
