[MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet

[Ian Glendinning]

Sigh, good job my ego's not the sensitive kind DMB ;-)

I get that, but I simply hold up the evidence that plenty of people on
MoQ.Dicsuss still experience the lack of clarity - even with
definitions - of what the MoQ levels do say about the real world - not
just the explicit description existence of static patterns in the real
world (I do get that), but also how we "should" interpret / decide
best actions / interactions with it, and how we should communicate
those with common understanding.

You don't seem to have that problem, was all I said about you here.
You could therefore help the rest of us.

My last response to Mati, Ron, Gav and yourself says more of relevance
- about drivel vs rigour - though clearly unlikley to be said in a way
that will satisfy you ... probably infuriate you more ... all I ask,
infuriated or not that you do not doubt my sincerity in trying to
solve a problem - you don't need to keep reminding me my style (aka
drivel) is not to your (rigorous) taste. I agree already, and it's not
an accident.

Ian

On 7/22/08, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> dmb said previously:
> I think that definitions are essential when one is doing metaphysics and that the differences between social and intellectual values can be discussed in conventional terms, not least of all because the differences themselves are conventional. ...the conflicts between social and intellectual values are legal, political, sociological, historical and military conflicts. ...
>
> Ian replied:
> DMB has the advantage that he has moved on to a level where he can see that talking in SOMist (conventional) terms about the (largely historical, political etc ...) levels is exactly that, just a matter of convention, and not allow it to confuse his thinking about the MoQ itself. ...It just means we (jointly) haven't found a way to exchange views (using these SOMist conventions) that doesn't confuse what we actually express about the MoQ "subject" under discussion.
>
> dmb says:
> Sigh.
>
> You've confused things once again.
>
> The levels of the MOQ are about conventional reality, static reality, but they are offered as a cure for the intellectual paralysis wrought by SOM. They are meant to replace SOM, to take away its metaphysical status and put it in a wider context. To talk about the levels in conventional terms is not at all the same as talking in SOM terms. In fact, one of the central problems with SOM is that there is no social/intellectual distinction, the distinction at the center of these discussions. There is nothing particularly SOM about definitions. The work of James, Dewey and Pirsig is full of definitions even while they are rejecting SOM.
>
> Your comments make no sense to me at all and yet you've attached my name as if I'd said it or agreed with it. Neither is the case and I'll ask you to leave me out of it, to please keep your drivel to yourself. Can I get you a bib?
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger.
> http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008
> 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/
>