[MD] is-ness

[Heather Perella]

Ron,

     Good post.  That's exactly why I brought this up.  For people to be able to talk about this.  It's getting at the heart of philosophical inquiry.  If people can't dig deep and reflect on themselves then they'll never honestly be able to understand their own motivations and premises.  I remember asking Ham a long time ago what his motivations are, why he thinks he needs to come up with a new philosophy.  He couldn't answer.  I mean he could have said something simple, like, all the current philosophies don't achieve what he finds reality to be or something to that nature.  I don't know, maybe he's trying to introduce an aethists god.  I'm not joking.  If we don't even know what we're doing, then as I've mentioned many times before then we would just be swinging a broad sword blindly hoping to hit the acorn in a room full of water balloons without getting wet - useless.


SA


--- On Tue, 8/19/08, Ron Kulp <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com> wrote:

> From: Ron Kulp <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] is-ness
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008, 1:45 AM
> SA:
>      Now that I've thought about it for a moment, I
> guess what I wrote
> lead into a lingering question for us.  Is it negative to
> disagree,
> argue against, and outrightly say somebody's got it
> confused or mixed up
> on a certain point?  Is that negative?  I would say no, but
> it seems to
> turn some people off.  Surely right and wrong are not as
> good - as good,
> for right and wrong are not what I'm inquiring into, it
> the act of
> disagreeing, not the underlying wrong-right issues, but
> disagreeing
> itself.  I'm talking about, for instance Ian comes to
> mind on this one,
> Ian thinks he or we all should, hold out until dialogue
> finally has us
> understand each other and disagreement exists only because
> we haven't
> dialogued long enough, but I find this to be uncreative. 
> 
> Ron;
> I think If someone has obviously misinterpreted a generally
> understood
> concept or meaning, then an effort to correct it is
> justified.
> I try to keep the mind in a discussion of being open to
> alternative
> interpretation and back my own opinons with as much
> generally
> accepted concepts I can, but some people hold certain
> misinterpretations
> to justify their opinions without any kind of generally
> accepted
> conceptual
> support.
> I think if both parties of the dialog are interested in
> coming to a
> collaborative conclusion and are leaving the door open to
> correction
> and alternative interpretation with an eye toward
> increasing and
> improving 
> the accuracy of their concepts then they are here in the
> spirit of
> intellectualism and the aim of the creators of this forum.
>  But if one is here with the intention of peddling useless
> and low-quality concepts without interest in increasing
> their
> own intellect then the intellectual agreement is off and
> they are 
> little more than a barker, an ad for sloppy thinking, like
> a billboard.
> 
> How can you debate a billboard?
> 
> SA:
> But my question is does anybody find it offending, wrong,
> or even an
> arousal of anger to have somebody disagree with you?  Is
> disagreeing
> negative?  I know some people will quickly stop talking
> with you on this
> forum if you disagree with them, which nothing wrong with
> that, but why
> do they disagree with you or is it only about getting your
> point of view
> across - forget about everybody else?  
> 
> Ron:
> Personally I get angry when the disagreement turns into an
> insult match
> and a display of one-up-man-ship.
> I think, again, it's root is in SOM. The belief that
> there is one
> universal way of thinking and understanding and if
> someone's ideas do
> not fit
> with your own interpretation then they are absolutely wrong
> and deserve
> to be tagged by insults. Just like school. Put the dunce
> cap on and sit
> in the corner....you see, I think we are conditioned to
> ridicule those
> who we disagree with us on that basis.
> So it's hardly surprising to see it emerge here. But if
> we are truly
> interested in increasing understanding this may be
> overcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/