[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[Krimel]

> > [Krimel]
> > That is hardly a response. It doesn't even show the slightest
> > indication that you even understand the nature of the problem. The
> > question was why, not what. But let's start back in kindergarten:
> > why do you think this division or any such division is required? Do
> > you even see the difference between Quality=Reality and
> > "Quality"="Reality"?

[Bo]
I answered your question (why a division was mandatory) with the 
obvious that any "Reality = X" is lame, tame and impotent.

[Krimel]
What a stunning response. I didn't think you could really be that thick
headed despite my early assessment.

[Bo]:
> > > What gives the MOQ its explanatory power is the point of its highest -
> > > static level being the previous SOM, 

[Krimel]
> > This explains nothing. The Greek distinction between continuous and
> > discontinuous, the metaphysical argument between Heraclitus and
> > Parmenides predates SOM and seems more or less identical to SQ/DQ.
> > But they all along with the giant dung beetle lie confortablly
> > together with the MoQ on the intellectual level

[Bo]
I have yet to find one SOM-induced problem that the  MOQ doesn't 
explain: Try me!   

[Krimel]
I have explain the MoQ isn't offering anything new. There have always be
other ways of stating metaphysical problems. Some are "better" than others.
The MoQ only claims to have a place among the best.
 
[Bo]
Please not these Ande-like inanities!

[Krimel]
Like some very many others who attempted to talk sensibly to you I think
Andre at least understand the problem. I may disagree with him and
definitely disagree with some of the others. At least I can respect them.
You on the other hand obviously don't understand the problem which be OK but
your arrogance about it really isn't even funny. Even Platt manages to be
funny. 

> > > [Bo] 
> > > It also has a biological level and says that intelligence 
> > > entered with brain, but does not consider itself as an intelligence
> > > (in the mind sense) product. 

> > [Krimel]
> > This anthropomorphic language of yours is inappropriate and
> > misleading. Levels don't say anything and the MoQ cannot "consider".
> > It is a product of the mind to be considered.

[Bo]
Well if you chose not to discuss the MOQ be my guest, but like Ham 
you have to drop your own hobby-horse to be part of this discussion. 

[Krimel]
It is one thing to use anthropomorphism as a heuristic device. But it only
would when you realize that is was you are doing. You really seem to think
the MoQ can have thoughts of its own and that the "levels" are plotting
elaborate schemes against one another. Once again if you lost the arrogance
it might at least be entertaining.

> > > [Bo]  
> > > Language is the ocean in which we swim so all efforts to introduce
> > > language is futile. 
 
> > [Krimel]
> > WTF, without language there would be nothing to introduce and not
> > way to introduce it. Try to engage your mind here, Bo.

[Bo]
The point was not skipping language, just that one must not include it 
in any metaphysical scheme. I mean we can talk about a time without 
language, but not like DMB and Co say that language is the static 
destroyer of dynamic unity.

[Krimel]
You can't talk about a metaphysics without a language to describe it. That
is what Pirsig is saying about the mystics. If you don't understand that you
are beginning on this kind of slippery ground from the onset you are going
to spend most of your time falling on your butt. Apparently, though it does
make talking out of your ass seem more reasonable.
  
> > [Krimel]
> > As I pointed out communication of emotion is built in and does not
> > require language. Language is just term we use to apply to
> > communication system that require learning and consensus in order to
> > work. It includes speech, gestures smoke signals, trail markers and
> > smoke signal.

[Bo]
It's communications in the conceptual sense I speak about and what 
we mean with "language". Body language hardly counts even if the 
message is clear.  

[Krimel]
What make body language clear but still language is that the message is
encoded and receive entirely automatically and biologically. What makes
spoke language work is that it is conceptual, learned and consensual. 

[Bo]
I don't know the "Giant Dung Beetleism", but I guess the Beetle 
created the world of its adhereres and as you demonstrate Taoism 
was not of any use until the Yang/Yin development. Judaism is Javeh 
and His World (and his chosen people)and Buddhism declares all 
existence has Buddha nature but have different appearances.   

[Krimel]
It really seems like you are incapable of understanding what people say to
you. It's like are more deserving of out pity than our condemnation.

continued:
> > [Krimel]
> > Ancient and tribal people were far more creative in their metaphysical 
> > story telling than you imagine. How foolish are you to say that  
> > Pharaoh Akhnaten, the world's first monotheist, had no reality, no 
> > sense of his own existence, no experience or no metaphysics. That is 
> > shear speculation at best and just plain ignorant at worst. I give 
> > you a shaky edge toward the former for the moment but the ice is very
> > thin.

[Bo]
I have not sleighed any gods I just say that all ordering of existence is 
dualistic is some form or other.    

[Krimel]
I am from Florida. No doubt you know more about sleighing than I but even a
southern boy can tell when someone has fallen through the ice.

[Bo]
Like the Cardinals you just refuse to look through the MOQ  
"telescope" much less adjust it to SOL sharpness, and who am I to 
force you?   

[Krimel]
You are at your most dense and most insulting when you claim that I have
much in common with the AWGI's and Pirsig's anointed. Thinking you are
deluded is about all we have in common. If we could stand to be in the same
room at the same time we would have you to thank for bringing us together.