x-man,
You want to pose as a moralist? That's amusing. Here's a quote you missed:
There are so many kinds of problem people like Rigel around, he thought, but
the ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals. Full of
great ways for others to improve without any
On Aug 29, 2013, at 10:55 AM, X Acto wrote:
Marsha:
You want to pose as a moralist? That's amusing. Here's a quote you missed:
There are so many kinds of problem people like Rigel around, he thought, but
the ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals. Full of
great
x-man,
You want to pose as a moralist? That's amusing. Here's a quote you missed:
There are so many kinds of problem people like Rigel around, he thought, but
the ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals. Full of
great ways for others to improve without any expense
Hi X and all
X says:
Robert Pirsigs answers to the problem:
the Metaphysics of Quality answers, 'The fundamental purpose of knowledge
is to Dynamically improve and preserve society.
It says it is immoral for intellect to be dominated by society for the same
reasons it is immoral for children to
prodictability = predictability prodict = predict
clumsy me :(
2013/8/28 Eddo Rats edd...@gmail.com
Hi X and all
X says:
Robert Pirsigs answers to the problem:
the Metaphysics of Quality answers, 'The fundamental purpose of knowledge
is to Dynamically improve and preserve society.
It
[Ron]
They are beliefs and criticism, but they are based in Bob Pirsigs idea
that we can not only judge other people but other cultures based on
their value of intellectual quality. we most certainly can morally judge
people based on their intellectual
values.
Eddo responds
dmb said to Ron:
... I was complaining that Ian responded to only one of my sentences and it was
a bland, introductory sentence in which I had said very little. It was just one
more way to complain about the lack of substance in Ian's response. ...I
reposted the entire thing and said to Ian,
Oh... It was helpful that you used the terms dmb's beliefs and criticism
and not argument and rationality. Exactly!
On Aug 25, 2013, at 8:59 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Ron had said to Ian:
Notice Ian, Dave never said agreement is bland. He said you announced your
dmb,
I have nothing to defend. I haven't presented an argument or even an
explanation concerning the Intellectual Level. In fact, it isn't something
I've given any thought to since the end of 2009. And here's a wiki statement
on 'argument' from a philosophical point of view.
In logic and
Marsha had said:
Oh... It was helpful that you used the terms dmb's beliefs and criticism
and not argument and rationality. Exactly!
[Ron]
They are beliefs and criticism, but they are based in Bob Pirsigs idea that we
can not only judge
other people but other cultures based on their
x said;
but we most certainly can morally judge people based on their intellectual
values.
Prove you can! or you're only talking intellectual dickshit!
Kind regards
Eddo
2013/8/27 X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com
Marsha had said:
Oh... It was helpful that you used the terms dmb's beliefs
Ron had said to Ian:
Notice Ian, Dave never said agreement is bland. He said you announced your
agreement with one bland statement. He specifically stated your statement was
bland.
dmb says:
This isn't a very important point but it does speak to the need for us all to
write and
Joe,
Do you think there is only one habit of thinking that concludes that life is
amazing? Life is amazing!
Marsha
On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:04 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi MarshaV and all,
It is hard for me to conceptualize a pattern of existence. Evolution is
Hi MarshaV and All,
I want to broaden the base for reality into an indefinable emotional reality
and an indefinable/definable intellectual reality.
Joe
On 8/23/13 2:08 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Joe,
Do you think there is only one habit of thinking that concludes that life is
Ian had said:
...And again, just to be clear, to recap, it's the discourse - the expression
and argument - I'm talking about, not the underlying metaphysics, where I think
we're all clear on MoQ-101, the primary S/O vs primary Q/DQ distinction.
Ron replied:
The foundation of any expression
Hi MarshaV and All,
What is the distinction between the observed and the observer if nothing
exists prior to the observation. The observation cannot create the
observer unless modifying is the existence of creation. In which case
creation is horribly restricted to definition and indefinable DQ
dmb said to Marsha:
...That's just a fraction of the things Pirsig has said about intellect. One of
his central aims, if not the most important one of all, is a root expansion of
rationality. By equating his conception of intellectual quality with SOM, you
have certainly missed the point of
dmb said to Marsha:
...That's just a fraction of the things Pirsig has said about intellect. One of
his central aims, if not the most important one of all, is a root expansion of
rationality. By equating his conception of intellectual quality with SOM, you
have certainly missed the point of
On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi MarshaV and All,
What is the distinction between the observed and the observer if nothing
exists prior to the observation.
A pattern.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
Hi MarshaV and all,
It is hard for me to conceptualize a pattern of existence. Evolution is
scary enough, and pre-patterned evolution takes the fun out of reality by
slighting creation. I couldn't do it any other way, and freedom is an
illusion, and I can't be held responsible.
Joe
On
Greetings,
Pirsig uses the term ‘subject-object metaphysics’ (SOM) for any metaphysics
(explicitly or implicitly) that perceives reality as either mind and/or matter
such as idealism, materialism, and dualism. This recognition is not unique to
Pirsig as, for instance, the Cambridge
Hi DMB,
Ian [had] replied:
Agreed. Precisely ...
dmb says:
Dude, you've announced your agreement with one bland statement and totally
ignored the rest. Why ask the question if you're just going to ignore the
answer.
Not ignoring, just proceeding carefully, progressively.
You say
Hi MarshaV and All,
Do levels in existence describe reality DQ/SQ?
The basis for reality in such an assumption would entail
indefinable/definable reality in existence. Does that describe DQ/SQ?
Is evolution nothing more than rhetoric?
MOQ DQ/SQ proposes indefinable reality. How can I
Marsha said:
Cannot help but wonder about the knower and the known, or the observer and the
observed? Has this dualist perspective vanished into a cloud of pretty
rhetorical terms such as elegance, consistency and coherence, and what of
phrases like DQ chooses and SOM thinks? Very pretty
Ian had said:
To avoid the (unnecessary) mixing up, to avoid (unnecessarily) working
the SOMism to death, let's disentangle any (low quality) narrow,
GOF-SOMist-intellectual discourse from a wider (high quality,
enlightened, extended) MoQ-ish-intellectual discourse - by expressing
what more
Ian:
without any visible agreements, actual positions get
ignored, perceived positions get misquoted (as straw men) and thrown
back as misleading positions in ad-hominem arguments. (Half a dozen
examples in this thread alone.)
[Ron points out]
Notice Ian, how you are making an appeal to
Dmb,
Pirsig uses the term ‘subject-object metaphysics’ (SOM) for any metaphysics
(explicitly or implicitly) that perceives reality as either mind and/or matter
such as idealism, materialism, and dualism. This recognition is not unique to
Pirsig as, for instance, the Cambridge Dictionary of
dmb,
“Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to
learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what
you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves
to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of
DMB, Arlo et al,
After I had said to Arlo ...
Rather than working the definition of SOMism to death, I'm asking what does
MoQish expression and argument have, that distinguishes it from SOMist
expression and argument.
dmb said:
I think it's quite clear that there are all kinds of ways to
Ian asked:
... I'm asking what does MoQish expression and argument have, that
distinguishes it from SOMist expression and argument.
dmb said:
I think it's quite clear that there are all kinds of ways to describe
intellectual quality WITHOUT getting it mixed up with SOM.
Ian replied:
Agreed.
David,
You ask, Why not say that ?
Because it's trivially true, a given from our MoQish perspective,
(nothing contentious as I already said) not the point I was making.
I was actually adding another point in a conversation with Arlo.
So, starting from your point:
DJH - When we talk about ideas
Hi Arlo,
Hmm, this is just widening again.
I wanted to talk about the intellectual level, you switched us to
coherence, I pointed out I found the MoQ totally / highly coherent,
but its expression less so and suggested we'd need a working
definition (*) of coherence to make progress, and you
[Ian]
I wanted to talk about the intellectual level, you switched us to coherence...
[Arlo]
?? This entire topic was generated by 'coherence'. Our off-line posts were
about 'coherence'. Even as you brought it back on-line, you asked:
[Ian previously]
Ian adds, would anyone like to continue, or
Weird Arlo,
So even as I restate my explicit question ...
As working definitions what distinguishes the MoQish intellect
from the SOMist ? (And vice-versa).
(You not only meta-debate the history how we came to be talking about
coherence, you pursue the why definition debate further, despite me
OK, so another re-start.
[main] I want to talk about the intellectual level (in the title);
such as working definitions of intellect and intellectual quality; and
in particular what MoQ adds to intellect - a question I've expressed
economically as What distinguishes MoQ-enlightened-intellect from
[Ian]
[main] I want to talk about the intellectual level (in the title); such as
working definitions of intellect and intellectual quality; and in particular
what MoQ adds to intellect - a question I've expressed economically as What
distinguishes MoQ-enlightened-intellect from
Arlo, you said.
SOMist refers to a view that holds subjects and objects as primary.
So, what distinguishes 'SOMist intellect' from 'MOQish intellect' is
the in the former there are pre-experiential 'objects' and in the
latter there are patterns of value that derive from the experiential
moment.
[Ian]
What I do say (using the words you suggest, from your reading of mine)is that
objective, scientistic, definitional logic does necessarily privilege
well-defined subjects and objects and well defined relations between these and
is a feature of SOMist intellectual expression and argument.
Excellent Arlo, Thanks for the persistence, I think we've got somewhere.
Let's work bottom-up.
Yes, I understood why you introduced coherence, hence saw it as
worthwhile to maybe switch to that for a while. Notwithstanding the
definition of coherence itself, it did also throw up this question
...In practice, this distinction [static and dynamic] refers to two facets of
any high-quality endeavour. Motorcycle maintenance and easel painting both
depend on the interaction of Static Patterns and Dynamic Quality. Pirsig made
an art out of motorcycle maintenance by first reading the
Hi David and All,
DQ metaphysics find the test of defineable mathematical computation
inadequate for reality.
Tests for truth. DQ experience! All movement can be attributed to
indefinable reality.
Is Metaphysics MOQ a forum for evolutionary reality? DQ change has a long
history! Festering
To cut a long story short,
we continued offline
to get round the 4 posts a day rule:
Arlo - Is Pirsig's MOQ coherent?
Ian - Yes (The Metaphysics itself, emphatically, unequivocally, Yes).
Ian - However the expression of his metaphysics (in his own words and
those of the more expert readers) is
[Ian]
Ian adds, would anyone like to continue, or join that up with the topics of
intellectual coherence as intellectual patterns - with or without working
definitions of coherence and intellect, which as Arlo already noted may be
ultimately unavoidable for some patterns?
[Arlo]
As I mentioned
So Arlo, your working definition of coherence has noting to do with
being definable carry on, anyone.
Ian
(BTW my topic was / is the intellectual level - but happy to continue
on coherence for now. I'm not doing any reducing - quite the
opposite.)
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM, ARLO
Arlo, OK, as Marsha says, the problem we're having is that debating
the intellectual level has become taboo, and turned into an excuse to
trade personal insults. Let's try and build from the following
example:
ARLO said to Ian:
Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step'
Hang on a second - at no point have I said that debating the
Intellectual level is taboo. I have never said anything like that - EVER!
What I have said is that the ridiculous idea that the Intellectual level
is the S/O level, as per Bo's nonsense, is not something that needs any
further
Ho Horse, I didn't say you had, I agreed effectively it had become taboo.
Discussion of the intellectual level does involve discussing S/O and
related intellect ideas - unavoidable. (As I've said before at root,
Bo actually had a point - he just didn't necessarily have the right
solution or
Ian,
You make a couple of claims which argue from a standpoint that ideas come
*before* quality and coherence. This is ugly and for lack of a better word …
has little coherence..
[Ian 1]
I do believe it's necessary to experience different levels of
incoherence in order to understand
Hi David, Thanks for addressing the actual point.
inserted
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM, David Harding
da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
Ian,
You make a couple of claims which argue from a standpoint that ideas come
*before* quality and coherence.
[IG] I don't. Apart from that
[Ian]
The real irony is that those who defend intellectual quality do seem to do
it from a SOMist intellectual perspective...
[Arlo]
Who. And on what basis do you interpret an SOMist intellectual perspective.
And, how would that contrast, in your opinion, with a nonSOMist intellectual
Hi Arlo, no thanks for not addressing the point ;-) but OK, inserted ...
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:12 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Ian]
The real irony is that those who defend intellectual quality do seem to
do it from a SOMist intellectual perspective...
[Arlo]
Who.
And this is the point I'm making. You said and agreed with:
... as Marsha says, the problem we're having is that debating the
intellectual level has become taboo ...
which is a complete red herring! There isn't and never has been a
problem with discussion of the Intellectual level on MD
level on MD. It's when the Intellectual
level is equated with Bo's gibberish about the Intellect being the S/O level
nonsense (which Marsha has been shown to agree with in her own words) that
it becomes a problem.
So it's entirely bogus to suggest that discussing the Intellectual level has
become
[Ian]
Hi Arlo, no thanks for not addressing the point ;-) but OK, inserted ...
[Arlo]
I didn't think you made a point that warranted addressing, apart from
accusations of SOMist intellectual perspective that you hadn't defined. But,
okay, let's see what kind of 'addressing' I can give this.
:
And this is the point I'm making. You said and agreed with:
... as Marsha says, the problem we're having is that debating the
intellectual level has become taboo ...
which is a complete red herring! There isn't and never has been a problem
with discussion of the Intellectual level on MD. It's
Hi Dan,
Of all the stories I've ever read, and of all the words on philosophy (ZMM
LILA excluded of course) I've tried to decipher, and of all the books
explaining Buddhism I've ever tried to interpret, your story of the misspelled
sign is my all-time favorite. It still comes to mind and
Sorry, here it is again without the long lines. -m
Hi Dan,
Of all the stories I've ever read, and of all the words on philosophy (ZMM
LILA excluded
of course) I've tried to decipher, and of all the books explaining Buddhism
I've ever tried to
interpret, your story of the misspelled
Thank you Marsha! I enjoyed writing it too.
Dan
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:50 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Dan,
Of all the stories I've ever read, and of all the words on philosophy (ZMM
LILA excluded of course) I've tried to decipher, and of all the books
explaining Buddhism
Hello everyone
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:31 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
dmb said:
Given that this is supposed to be a place to discuss metaphysics, to debate
philosophical issues, all this other stuff seems like a distraction. To be
honest, I don't really care if that
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Mary marysonth...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to all who were brave enough to comment on my post. That is
something people don't understand about the tragedy of others. They really
want to talk about it. The next time a co-worker or someone else you know
has a
dmb said:
Given that this is supposed to be a place to discuss metaphysics, to debate
philosophical issues, all this other stuff seems like a distraction. To be
honest, I don't really care if that makes me seem unfriendly. The only that
matters to me here, is WHAT you say, not how you say it
: Mary marysonth...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 11:27:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level of Quality, according to Mark
Thanks to all who were brave enough to comment on my post. That is
something people don't understand about the tragedy of others
Mary
Your essay is a tour de force in the art of writing, just some
philosophical (MOQ) comments and then one personal.
Men are predators and women are prey animals.
I see your point, but from a MOQ point of view human existence isn't
all biological, but has been overlaid by the social
Mary,
Those who know me keep saying I should write a book, because I have a book
worth of ideas to write about.
I agree you should write. I like reading your words, and I'm picky.
I spent the first 2 years attempting to achieve forgiveness - to the
husband
and to his Mother. I
John said to Mary:
You hit upon a very interesting topic there. Royce once answered the question
in a letter, why in his experience there were so few female philosophers. He
said the problem was not intellectual - women are just as smart as men, but
moral. The female of the species is
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:18 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.comwrote:
John said to Mary:
You hit upon a very interesting topic there. Royce once answered the
question in a letter, why in his experience there were so few female
philosophers. He said the problem was not intellectual
Hello everyone
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary:
Those who know me keep saying I should write a book, because I have a book
worth of ideas to write about.
John:
I agree you should write. I like reading your words, and I'm picky.
Mary:
I
Hello everyone
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:18 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Sure, we tend to like the people who agree with us but that's just the ego's
satisfaction, not the intellect's. Given that this is supposed to be a place
to discuss metaphysics, to debate
Thanks to all who were brave enough to comment on my post. That is
something people don't understand about the tragedy of others. They really
want to talk about it. The next time a co-worker or someone else you know
has a tragic experience, remember that they would really like you to ask
them
Dan, - thanks for re-posting...I remember your story from
a while ago and I think I commented at the time, very
touching.
Mary - Thanks for posting your story too...it takes a lot of
courage to write memories of past experiences as traumatic
as that with such detail - and especially to post on
, 2010 6:42 PM
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level of Quality, according to Mark
Hi Mary and Lu,
I don't often post on the group - don't have much time, but
occasionally I see something that I feel I absolutely must
comment on.
I have worked in male dominated
Dan Glover wrote:
Walking on Clouds...
Dan, I read the other story from the archives, a couple of weeks ago... I
wanted to say something... But what is there to say? I read it and cried. I
felt a portion of your joy and pain and loss through your words, and isn't
that what stories are for?
Hearing Mary Dan's stories helps one appreciate
where they're coming from. As Pirsig says, we judge
quality differently because of the accumulation of analogs
that we are.
That's why it's important not to force one's values on others,
but allow pluralistic societies to emerge.
Craig
Dan and Mary,
Y'all have got me going. Mary about Texan drummers and Dan over women too
good for us.
Dan, I know exactly what you describe and I think I know why it is that
sometimes degenerate bozos like us end up with beautiful women. It's
because of awareness. Pure and simple. There's
to deal with it
but I have to say, my struggles here on the discuss have helped me
the most.
-Ron
- Original Message
From: Mary marysonth...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Tue, February 23, 2010 2:37:55 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level of Quality, according
Sorry for the delay, Craig. New job. Real hours. Many posts to read.
S/O is good, not SOM is good. I should have said. Subject Object
perception is a useful and fun tool. It's not the basis of being. Cast it
away as the basis of being, but don't cast it away as a good and useful
tool, is
ah no, I'm a frigging saint. I read it somewhere in the MD so it must be
true.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:32 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[John]
my wife...I just yelled at her...
Beast!
Actually, it's easy guys. Just figure out what they really want and then
fake like you are
Mary,
Got the perfect site for ya..
http://www.freewebs.com/mhaforlife/
enjoy
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/
Of Margaret Warren
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:42 PM
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level of Quality, according to Mark
Hi Mary and Lu,
I don't often post on the group - don't have much time, but
occasionally I see something that I feel I absolutely must
Hi Mary,
I must take exception to some of the things you wrote in response to my
husband...
[Mary]
As the resident expert on emotions (the token female) I take umbrage at your
statement, John. Let's face it, men have only a tangential connection to
their emotions. It is not allowed in Western
[mailto:moq_discuss-
boun...@lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Louise Pryor
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 3:49 PM
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Level of Quality, according to Mark
Hi Mary,
I must take exception to some of the things you wrote in response to my
husband
Dear Craig --
When I asked you to tell me where I've lost you, you replied:
Valuing...impossibility.
Not to be rude, but I did not understand one sentence.
You seem to know what you mean, but I would need some
examples in order to catch up. For instance, the essence
of that reality which is
Hi Mary and Lu,
I don't often post on the group - don't have much time, but
occasionally I see something that I feel I absolutely must
comment on.
I have worked in male dominated fields (computer science,
audio engineering, and vintage car restoration,
as well as being an artist - a
field
Mary, Mary, so contrary
[Mary Replies]
As the resident expert on emotions (the token female) I take umbrage at
your
statement, John. Let's face it, men have only a tangential connection to
their emotions. It is not allowed in Western culture. You have only two
socially acceptable
[John]
my wife...I just yelled at her...
Beast!
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Bodvar announced:
Of course the old Egyptians, Babylonians, Stonehengers and every
culture known or unknown were as INTELLIGENT as present day humankind,
they induced, deduced, conceived, calculated and built complicated
edifices without having the faintest INTELLECTUAL knowledge that
Ham,
I agree completely.
'cept for one little word change. Switch assumption to conclusion in
your formulation:
Ham:
That events occur without our knowledge is an intellectual assumption.
John:
For is it not true, Ham, that intellectual reasoning can reach such a
conclusion, and even if the
Bo,
First, nice dig at English as an improper language. My British wife is sure
to give that statement
a disdainful sniff.
I can't see it faintly matching your ... RMP asked for some proof of
Egyptian cultures use of long chain of deductions before the Greeks,
rather him saying that the term
On 2/19/2010 at 8:45 PM, Craig writes:
Ham [said]
phenomena and events are better known as Experience.
And the observer of this experience is you or me. In the
absence of observers there would be no experience,
so experience is subjective in nature.
But we can. Perform the following
Alright Craig, he's a big guy but maybe we can take him if we tag-team him.
You take him high, I will, as ever, take him low.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
I disagree. You have shown that empirical knowledge is grounded in
experience, not that
Well Ham,
For the purposes of increasing my understanding of your
epistemology, I would ask the following question. At what
point does the objective (experience creating) become the
subjective (experience translation)? I would agree that all
tools are extensions of the mind, and I do not want
Evening, Craig --
For the purposes of increasing my understanding
of your epistemology, I would ask the following
question. At what point does the objective
(experience creating) become the subjective
(experience translation)? I would agree that all
tools are extensions of the mind, and I do
[John]
This is the problem so many here have and have had in
declaiming the subject/object relationship as non-fundamental and they end
up proclaiming it as non-existent!
SOM - is Good
If you're saying the subject/object relationship is non-fundamental,
why are you saying SOM - is
[Ham]
Valuing...impossibility.
tell me where I've lost you.
Not to be rude, but I did not understand one sentence.
You seem to know what you mean, but I would need some examples
in order to catch up.
For instance, the essence of that reality which is sensed as Value:
What about the
Paco and Ron.
Feb 18 Paco wrote
Was it possible to build the pyramids without the use of (long chain) of
deductions? Or even the tower of Babel?
Of course the old Egyptians, Babylonians, Stonehengers and every
culture known or unknown were as INTELLIGENT as present day
humankind, they
Bodvar,
Feb 18 Paco wrote
Was it possible to build the pyramids without the use of (long chain) of
deductions? Or even the tower of Babel?
Bodvar announced:
Of course the old Egyptians, Babylonians, Stonehengers and every
culture known or unknown were as INTELLIGENT as present day
[ Ham}
phenomena and events are better known as Experience.
And the observer of this experience is you or me. In the
absence of observers there would be no experience, so experience is
subjective in nature.
But these same events occur when nobody is observing,
so they are not
Ron
19 Feb.:
Bodvar announced:
Of course the old Egyptians, Babylonians, Stonehengers and every
culture known or unknown were as INTELLIGENT as present day humankind,
they induced, deduced, conceived, calculated and built complicated
edifices without having the faintest INTELLECTUAL
Hey, Craig --
[Ham}
phenomena and events are better known as Experience.
And the observer of this experience is you or me. In the
absence of observers there would be no experience, so
experience is subjective in nature.
But these same events occur when nobody is observing,
so they are not
Bo,
Your history is somewhat naive. Have you ever heard
of the Babylonians?
Mark
On Feb 19, 2010, at 1:44:56 PM, skut...@online.no wrote:
Ron
19 Feb.:
Bodvar announced:
Of course the old Egyptians, Babylonians, Stonehengers and every
culture known or unknown were as INTELLIGENT as present
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
