patterns:
Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the rules
for their rational analysis and manipulation.
Ian - Yes, static / reified long enough for such manipulation and
analysis to take place.
Intellectual patterns create
false boundaries, create a division between
) but fear I will not
have time the next day or two.
Ian
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Ron,
Ron said:
I respect your call to inquiry.
It brings up questions about the role of a community and
the responsibilities connected
Adrie,
The lack of evidence was not really a criticism, just an observation.
A paper like this for lay understanding must almost always be
rhetoric.
(But I have researched these two guys web sites the last day or two -
and asked a couple of physics friends - interesting.)
Ian
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010
a subject with an intentional stance to participate in the
quality of these low-level object-to-object events. (Was not the
magnet iron-filings example a little contrived, as parodied in
Glenn's rotting apple ?)
Just a thought.
Ian
(Oh, and PS when AI arrives it will be Real-I, not Artificial, so
Good to have a new voice voicing these points Andy. In my words, when
AI arrives it will be real, and it will have evolved through A-Life
before it does. The patterns in the silicon processes will really be
alive.
This entirely predicted by the MoQ.
Ian
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 11
Still spot on Horse.
Ian
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 11, 2010, at 20:38, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote:
Hi Steve, Dan, DMB, Ron, John, Matt, Platt and anyone else who's
interested
On 11/07/2010 02:25, Steven Peterson wrote:
Steve:
If those supporting Horse's action don't think Bo
Yes Matt,
Horse is
adding the force of moq.org officialness
to the long-standing Bo/SOL/dishonesty situation we all
recognized, including you.
Done
Ian
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com wrote:
Apparently I'm not making _myself_ clear
Well said Dan.
(All the generalizations about cults and censorship are dishonest
muddyings of the waters.)
Ian
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
[Matt]
However, what is this line
the waters with straw-men and bogey-men to their own
deliberate and politically motivated ends.
Platt, please stand up.
Firing squad, take aim.
(Come the revolution.)
Regards
Ian
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11
Hehe, need a little light relief on a Friday.
Will do Steve :-)
Ian
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Platt Holden platthol...@gmail.com wrote:
[Ian]
Platt, please stand up.
Firing squad, take aim.
(Come
am to be accused of riding the high horse to point out that
honesty is a good idea to defend, then so be it. Sorry Steve.
Ian
(PS Marsha is away on a vacation break I believe.)
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
welcome, for ever), Bob does not
endorse it, in fact he explicitly brands it low quality.
To claim otherwise is a simple lie.
Regards
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail
there are practical/material/physical/electrical issues
No you dummy - our bandwidth - the mental traffic, the goodwill, the
conversation, the tolerance, the intellect, the % of mails on this
subject in our inboxes.
I repeat ... the message is give it a rest Bo.
Kill this intellectual pattern as instructed.
Ian
it was a release I've never looked back
from.
Ian
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
What was it like for you the first time? I bought the first book thinking I
was reading just
But ... as Bob continued ... It's just that I see a lowering of the
quality of the MOQ itself if you follow this path ...
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Platt Holden platthol...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All:
As long as there's a suggestion to add selected quotes from Pirsig at the
top of posts
We got there in the end Matt.
Like you, I can switch off from Bo (or Platt) - so can anyone.
This is Horse's thread, not Bo's. A decision as moderator to not
simply ignore him, but exactly as per your own advice,
to tell Bo to shut the fuck up.
Ian
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Matt Kundert
Matt asked
Why Bo is felt to be different in kind than other idiosyncratic posters ?
Because of his claim is that his idiosyncratic idea is explicitly Pirsig's.
Ian
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
We got there in the end Matt.
Like you, I can
And Matt, Magnus answered your question explicitly
You missed *the* crucial point Horse has tried to make twice now:
Bo is telling people that the SOL is Pirsig's idea.
Time to draw a line.
Ian
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
Matt asked
Why Bo
!?!) It is a shame - as in shameful
- that Horse is put through the mangle by all the butter-wouldn't-melt
/ holier-than-thou opinions on the subject. It's his job, he's doing
it in practice, the theorists should butt out.
Ian
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote
even Ian
can say that. Bo has had several metric tonnes of tolerance over the
last 8 to 10 years. Horse was drawing a line.
The only moral issue here is Bo's ignorance of the Bo SOL issue is
clogging up the entire MD bandwidth. The issue that many of us do
ignore him for long periods - until he
way he likes - and any new ideas or opinions of
others. And as you say, doing so has created plenty of discussion on
the intellectual level. You will not find anyone denying this
What he can't do is pass it off as Pirsig's idea - simple really.
Ian
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:27 AM, nom de plumeweb
of morality in the in the MoQ, despite that
accepted view which he is entitled to do. What he is not entitled
to do is to say it was Bob's idea that he do so and that Bob has
agreed with him doing so.
Ian
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Horse,
[Horse
either ..
He is just not entitled to say his idea is Pirsig's.
Ian
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian? What the ?
Mary ? What the ?
You said
I'm just concerned to hear that the accepted view is now that ZMM and
Lila were not inspired by an aversion to SOM
audience laughter.
MoQ has a lot to offer this debate. These are dots I join up daily.
Ian
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:22 AM, nom de plumeweb nomdeplume...@gmail.com wrote:
Howdy,
Many thanks for your polite and considerate responses. In reading
these initial comments it is gratifying to see
Sorry Bo, but if you don't see honesty as part of the etiquette being
moderated then you are simply being dishonest again when you say
point taken, and lo ...
... you continue to say your SOL interpretation is clearly written in
ZMM for all to see.
Point patently not taken Bo ?
Ian
On Thu, Jul
the enlightenment already done that - not
exactly amoral, but above all other moral considerations.
Whatever your commitment to the idea you cannot fail to see why
every MoQist should reject it.
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss
(that's you Platt, The Old Plant) is the one and only fool
to which the rule is allowed not to apply, otherwise you'd be ahead of
Bo in the queue. Hang on to the thorny crown, that's how we can tell
it's you.
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org
Jo, I don't really get your points but my response inserted :
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 1, 2010, at 22:44, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
On 6/29/10 1:01 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Ian and all,
Iqn, imho your point misses the mark. You
it
right off (being careful not to break the switch) and go hitchhiking
(or tripping, or beachcoming maybe).
Ian
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:36 AM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Spoiler alert!
Now for those of you who like to be surprised, I suggest you turn the page.
Go watch a good
, Marsha SOLAQI
treadmill.
For anyone whose standard of expalantion is SOMist (objective,
logical, reductive) I suspect SOL is a good explanation. For a MOQist,
it's not.
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives
atoms (objects) I can conceive.
Thirdly, I understand you've not got long off to the beach ?
So I will assume for now, that your asking the question was simply a
rhetorical response to Ron's question.
Have a good break.
Ian
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Ian
of the objects is a metaphysics, or in the
whacko case tat Pirsig quotes, a problem because man and science are
being treated like objects ... the very problem he was fixing by
considering a better metaphysics.
Ian
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Platt Holden platthol...@gmail.com wrote
.
He said Kill Intellect. He meant to say it, he knew what he meant
when he said it, but anyone taking those two words at face value
distorts what he actually had in mind - what he intended, preferred,
valued, etc ... which a few people seem quite incapable of seeing.
Ian
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7
Excellent Platt, EXCEPT,
Mary's two points were about SOM, (explicitly stated SOM says ..),
not about the intellectual level.
The level of intentional dishonesty in the argumentation is embarrassing.
Ian
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Platt Holden platthol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28
or change the
subject, and repeat your one true way claims.
Dishonesty is exactly why we have a moderator.
Ian
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote:
Hi Bo
On 28/06/2010 09:19, skut...@online.no wrote:
Horse, All.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc
, not anything
Mary had said. It should have been an anti-SOMist-intellectual point.
If we want to prove that Bo's definition of intellect is SOM, then
that's a given. If we want to debate whether it is a good definition
for MoQ's 4th level ... then you answered the question already.
Ian
On Tue, Jun 29
Precisely John,
So (in the other thread) concluding that a SOMist definition of
intellect is immoral is one thing, but concluding that intellect IS
therefore immoral is a logical misstep too far.
Try MoQish intellect
... intellect with a good dose of morality, you know it makes sense.
Ian
as any intellectual interpretation
of experience permits. Saying SQ is simply more or less dynamic is
true, as per Case's little ditties, but don't confuse that with DQ.
Ian
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Krimel kri...@krimel.com wrote:
[Ian]
(I didn't need to re-order or re-interpret Dan's words
Mary
MoQ and the Art ?
Ian
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
Pirsig said in The MoQ and Art:
If you look at cultures outside of America, or if you look at cultures
before Plato, you find there wasn't much reason in them. They settled
disputes by revenge
was
rhetoric-free.)
(I don't disagree with your interpretations ... I just want to clear
some ground.)
Ian
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Marsha]
RMP is vey, very clear where he writes:
While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all
it.
Regards
Ian
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ian,
To be complete, here's an expansion of that quote.
I wrote in one introduction to Coffee with Plato that we live inside the
mind of Plato. That Plato is the man who invented reason, almost, as we
, imagine he would.
What people say, mean, do, mean to say, mean to do, say they mean or
say they do are at least seven different things, before anyone brings
imperfections like ignorance into it.
Ian
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Ian]
Arlo, you
it. The quality of wisdom is not strain'd
Ian
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
some purpose, that is.
The rhetoric of just another and dump is for those whose point is
simply looking for an argument.
Ian
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:38 PM, platthol...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 Jun 2010 at 8:12, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
Why would you even need more? If that (the SOL
,
by valuing our experience in breaking such patterns.
Ian
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Platt]
What Pirsig said undermines the MOQ is suggesting it is just another product
of S/O thinking -- which is exactly what those who dump the MOQ
frustration, me
included. I assume your motive may be fun, but either way your wisdom
is not in doubt - I repeat. )
Ian
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Jun 28, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Marsha,
Andre asked
What part of you wants evidence
years on.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:11 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Ian said:
All this quoting of Pirsig's rhetoric as part of arguments (other than
arguments about what he said, clearly) is a really scary trend - he's not
some authoritative guru on whose every word we hang
Exactly Arlo, glad you emphasized it.
Recursion is part of the real world, not a problem in need of an
artificial solution.
Ian
PS - I wasn't being precious, disingenuous or plain smart-arsed, I
just wanted to tease out one point to catch-up on an (old) argument
I'd not been following closely
Horse to potentially undermine MoQ for
unenlightened minds.
This Trojan Horse, that logic undermines quality, I have called
Catch-22, and I get called stupid for my efforts too ;-)
Regards
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss
and unions. DQ is
ONLY the immediate undefinable quality. The lifetime of sq definitions
is variable, but always relatively static for some period of time. DQ
is undefined for any period of time ever. They are qualitatively
different things.)
Ian
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Krimel kri...@krimel.com
Interesting ?
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=3453
Name dropping some favorites ... James ... Gombrich ...
Ian
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
Excellent Matt / Mary
Another counter intuitive strange loop.
Making humility explicit, devalues it.
Making the good truly definitive makes it bad / less good.
Love it.
The time has come for meta-meta-physics, methinks.
Ian
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict
something is one thing. But
Logical definition is another, different thing. A metaphysics and it's
subject are different things.)
Ian
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
- and therefore demand new rules in the way
the game is refereed, etc metaphor for evolution in all forms of
governance.)
Example http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1757
Ian
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey Ian,
First joining up the comment of Krim's you
; objectives in the purposeful sense -
technology doesn't help there, at least not directly, only with
hindsight, etc.)
Ian
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 6:24 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian,
I'm interested in a new phenomena taking over games, wherein video replay
shows the audience
...
initially, which I said I suspected was the case ... it didn't seem
like you to make such a point.)
Ian
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com wrote:
Matt said:
Spoken like someone that doesn't have to vote in the
United States. (Which is to say, think
, but strategically ... etc
Or, the Bo-ists (who hold that the MoQ is above the intellectual
analytic knife) need better strategies so that their wished-for
interpretation of MoQ can be communicated to the here and now SOMists.
Magic
Ian
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict
Matt said
Spoken like someone that doesn't have to vote in the United
States. (Which is to say, think strategically--i.e.
rhetorically--in this political environment.)
Ian says
Spoken like a US citizen who thinks the US is somehow supremely
different to everywhere else. You think the politics
. What is your strategy
for providing MoQ with that authority, if not to engage in argument
and real-world interaction with existing social and intellectual
patterns ?
Regards
Ian
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Krimel Bo,
Fascinating stuff. What occurs
.
There are interpretations of the singularity that involve human-AI
symbiosis, that seem much more credible to me. Uploading or otherwise.
You seem to be living out your literary character Krimel :-)
Fewer sceptics at the 2010 event I see.
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http
the particular rules of the game that the umpire is
applying.
Violent agreement. The authority of a legal system is more important
than the laws they enforce.
(As I said I have no specific knowledge of the specific case)
Ian
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com
AGI's need to negotiate the good as well as process the information.
The good has dependencies in levels below the intellect.
But now I'm repeating myself.
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http
Strangely relevant Matt ?
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2010-06-15utm_campaign=newsletter_weeklyutm_medium=email
Ian
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Matt
is often an ass. I don't believe fairness resides
in the rules.
Ian
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Matt Kundert
pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Mary,
I went and saw Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time in the
theatre yesterday (mainly because it is hot in the desert,
and so is Jake
power.
Kurzweil, Goertzel and Wolfram ... not a bad day out for 200 bucks.
There is a lot of hype here, but an injection of excitement is always
good.
Ian
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:39 AM, Krimel kri...@krimel.com wrote:
Hi all,
It has been and extra-ordinarily interesting past few days and I lost
?
I remain sceptical about the former happening until AGI evolves
through replication and social organization.
The latter I just see as natural human evolution.
Ian
[Ian]
Explain the Goertzel sent an emissary to the MoQ remark?
[Krimel]
Try searching Goertzel on the Moq.org site.
[Ian
Glad to be of service John,
Ian
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Greetz All,
I was toodling around yesterday, following a link Matt sent, (thanks Matt)
and came across a book review Pirsig did in 1975, about a man going through
divorce.
http
Great, but world comprising only mothers is unworkable.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Fam. Kintziger-Karaca
kintziger_kar...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi gang (Ian)
total chaos =pattern of maximum diffusion.
Chaos is the mother of all patterns, as in chaos before the big bang.
The value
be unpredictable, but that doesn't make them unstable.
And pairs being more predictable / intelligible does prevent then from
being unstable.
But 100% chaotic dynamism s with zero predictable stability would be
... err ... chaos.
Dynamic quality needs static patterns too.
Ian
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:15 PM
To John the enthusiast of group things, from Ian the enthusiast of
paired things.
I call this the three-body-problem - after Newton. Pairs work because
they are (sufficiently) predictable three or more, chaos.
Workable groups are made of pairs of pairs of pairs of ...
Jerry Garcia and Neal
.)
Regards
Ian
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:24 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Matt,
Hi Matt,
It's no big deal. It's an ailing social pattern. I'm
trying to consider its value. Is it an instrument of
the church? Is it an instrument of the state? Where
does its value lie? Or maybe I'm
What do we think about that ?
Confusing causation with correlation I'd say ;-)
Ian
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:30 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
I remember hearing that men who are married live longer, while it is women
who are single that live longer. Interesting statistic wouldn't you say
-mate has shared-values when all is said and done, and
it's values that matter.
Regards
Ian
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:28 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi John,
I like the story, but I like all your stories.
At first I thought a discussion concerning Tipper and Al a bit stupid too.
I agree
PS forgot to ask, who are Al and Tipper ?
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
As a non-inspector of non-pinheads Marsha, I'll give you my
non-intellectual story.
My wife and I have been married a little under 30 years. For the years
between 10
just not the subject of the
book you are currently reading.
Ian
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:42 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Platt,
Yes, it does seem that way. He does plenty of talking about patterns, and
I did get a little hopeful, but no he's a materialist. One wants to ask him
why
This may be of interest.
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=3403
Ian
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
too. Quality matters.
Ian
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:44 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Ian,
That may be. I would like to read more. He seems like not only
an interesting thinker, but a very nice man. But at this point he
does seem to consider the brain as something 'real'.
I have
.
Regards
Ian
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Just finished Beatrice and Virgil by Yann Martel, the latest from the
author of Life of Pi--one of my all-time favorites:
Fiction and nonfiction are not so easily divided. Fiction may not be
real
And lest Ron is offended ... clearly the quality of Ron's experience
of Disney was the family, not Disney per se.
Jeez, it's even been called quality time by SOMists for a decade or two ...
Ian.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John
between Hofstadter and Pirsig's early biographies ...
Ian
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:13 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Adrie,
At the moment, I'm reading 'I Am A Strange Loop' by Douglas Hofstadter.
Could you
explain you bargain to get me to read Hawking's book? Hawking seems to be
more
Frank, I tend to think of the stack as a cone of pyramid, then you get
the circular (or square) Venn diagram by looking down on it.
Ian
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Frank Booth frankboot...@yahoo.com wrote:
I often hear of the levels as if stacked up like a ziggurat.
Wouldn't a Venn diagram
on it.
Ian in response to Franf's:
I often hear of the levels as if stacked up like a ziggurat.
Wouldn't a Venn diagram with 4 concentric regions be truer to the concept of
quality built of quality built of quality built of quality?
Andre:
Or the ZEN circle.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Hi Ron, a holiday (from anything) is always good, but I couldn't
imagine a worse place to spend 10 hours let alone 10 days than Disney
World.
Ian
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:41 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Just spent a week, 10 days exact, Disney world. Did'nt think once about work
of the latter.
And earlier the idea of scientists being in the grip of scientistic dogma.
Ian
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
Just noticed that next week's BBC Radio 4 In Our Time is on
William James Varieties ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl
?
It might help if I understood the phrase retains the old bias of
epistemology ? (Personally, when I think epistemology, I'm thinking
the meaning of life, not the meaning of words.)
Regards
Ian
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:31 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
All interested MOQers
Arlo, Marsha,
Marsha, is your problem reacting to Arlo saying this is how it is -
the insulting schoolmasterly impression - because you are missing that
his sentences start with IF ?
Just logical consequences of the statements of others.
Ian
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Arlo Bensinger ajb
, but the argument may not
actually have been a logical one anyway.
What is lost, is trust.
Ian
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
Are you weird, Marsha ? Not to me. Beautifully human.
That NATURE is intellect was preceded by the clause IF intellect is
SOM ...then .. is an example of something you may have missed ? Arlo
wasn't asserting anything forecfuly at all.
Ian
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 7:25 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net
Hi folks,
Not sure how many people know Chris Bartneck's work, but he shared a
link with us to a lecture he gives on quality in design ...
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=3344
(And Bob commented ... notice)
Regards
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org
You're gonna have to introduce yourself Frank ... ?
Ian
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Frank Booth frankboot...@yahoo.com wrote:
Godamnitalltohell. ( kicks can, sulks away. )
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Hey Craig, talking of theoretical matter, is there something you're
not telling us ?
http://phonkmeister.com/post/556824674/time-machine
Ian
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
The MOQ says that Quality comes first which produces ideas
which produce what we know
something to do with know-that ... in
this context.
Regards
Ian
PS, I'm interested again Steve ;-) Circularity is BETTER than logical
definitions.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail
Bo, trying hard here ... (inserted below) ...
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:52 PM, skut...@online.no wrote:
Ian
You wrote:
Hopefully Bo, you can therefore see why I 99% agree with your position.
In a way, the only thing I resist in your position is the tendency to
wrap the good in a static
Ha,
With emphasis on the word I left out of my sentence - Doh!
how DO we know that
Ian
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve, Matt, n'all ...
In fact the intellectual is about the behaviour of thinking how we
know that ... where know-how
Just noticed that next week's BBC Radio 4 In Our Time is on
William James Varieties ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail
by rigidly encasing it, it is
possible to do the same with Quality in the MoQ if we don't allow it
(and its definitions) room to breathe, room for atma.
You're happy being 99% perfect, but I ... wanna go one better ;-)
Ian
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:59 PM, skut...@online.no wrote:
Ian and Group
4 May
Hi Steve,
No, I think I do get DMB, he said exactly what I said he'd say ...
ie he does NOT say truth is whatever we feel justified in believing.
His emphasis not mine.
Back to what I'd said ... You said
I don't see any difference between Ian says that X is true and
Ian says he believes that X
http://www.howthelightgetsin.org/
Ian
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
stop you arguing with DMB.
Ian
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Steven Peterson
peterson.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ian,
Ian:
No, I think I do get DMB, he said exactly what I said he'd say ...
ie he does NOT say truth is whatever we feel justified in believing.
His emphasis not mine.
Steve
from which more static patterns might emerge.
It is simply good to treat the MoQ as if it had existed before being
intellectually expressed (See Gravity above).
Regards
Ian
PS come back Paul Turner
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi
801 - 900 of 2194 matches
Mail list logo
