[MD] Tit's

[Krimel]

Krimel said to dmb:
Ok, this is the same lame critique you have offered in the past. I think it
misses several points but...

dmb replies:
You could take a look at the philosophers I mentioned. Their explanations
would certainly be less lame than my explanations. I've asked Matt K to
explain to you how the linguistic turn in philosophy has impacted on SOM.
That's kind of his specialty. But maybe he's not interested. But it would
take actual work to give more than I already have. When it comes to going
off the top of my head, that's about it. But thanks. It was fun trying.

[Krimel]
I don't really see how the linguistic turn applies to whether or not you
reject the existence of a world external to your own thoughts. Or how such a
view could be reconciled with a scientific view. Or how you can possibly
regard the MoQ as dualistic. Or why you think mystical experiences have not
been the subject of scientific study. Or why you think the universality of
mystical experiences makes them more valid guides to truth than universally
reported hallucinations or dreams. Or if we grant your wildest fantasies
about applying radical empiricism what questions we could then ask and what
hypothesis you would propose.

But Matt's a smart guy, at least if he puts words in your mouth this time it
will be because you asked him to.