[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Krimel 

7 June.:

[Bo] before
> 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.

Tell me the thick-headed the explanatory force of declaring Reality = X 
without the X having some "creation", "fall-out" or "expression"? As not 
to give you a chance to escape out on some tangent I limit myself  to 
this issue.  

Bodvar 

PS 
I don't mind the least being called names as long as the MOQ proves 
unassailable, so you can save your foul breath.     


























> 
> [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.
> 
> 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
> 
>