[MD] Another parallel

[gav]

hiya,
i don't think it is about killing the intellect; it is about killing intellectual 'noise': the unconscious activity of the mind that is really an extrusion of the social level.
once this noise abates the intellect is empowered.


--- On Tue, 21/7/09, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Received: Tuesday, 21 July, 2009, 5:13 AM
> 
> Marsha said to Ron:
> You are asking questions about your own assumptions? 
> To attempt to answer them would be to give them legitimacy,
> which they do not deserve.
> 
> dmb says:
> On what grounds are you declaring Ron's questions
> illegitimate and undeserving of an answer? I don't see them
> that way at all. As you might recall, I basically asked you
> the same thing and you refused to answer then too. As I see
> it, he and I are both asking you to explain what looks like
> an extremely incoherent position. It looks like relativism
> or even nihilism to me, both of which are a far cry from the
> MOQ. 
> As I see it, anti-intellectualism is not only incorrect and
> immoral, it's dangerous. I mean, if someone were to assert
> one of the intellectual values described in Lila, let's say
> human rights and freedom of speech for example, do you think
> it would be appropriate to respond with "not this, not
> that"? If a new Hitler were to come along would you respond
> to the opposition with "not this, not that"? The
> implications and consequences of such a position would a
> moral nightmare.
> Despite my disagreements with you, Marsha, I'd be happy to
> bite you. ;-) Coming from you, that was hilarious. Almost as
> funny as John's concern with the "overreactionaries". 
> Anyway, I'd ask you to THINK carefully about what you're
> saying but apparently you don't believe in that sort of
> thing. It's just outrageous.
>   
> Ron had said to Marsha:
> > I would like to know, since you folks think MoQ is
> reality
> > and SOM is intellect , MoQ being indefinable, how may
> it have
> > more explanitory power if one's focus is on killing
> those explainations?
> > 
> > Are his books worthless since there are works of SOM?
> > 
> > writing here is then a waste of time and goes against
> the
> > indefinability of reality. any thing that is written
> is SOM
> > and all concepts being SOM.
> > 
> > why do you contribute if this is how you view the
> situation
> > arent you violating your own values? is'nt anything
> you 
> > write "not it". why waste words? why bother?
> > 
> > to clarify the point, I do not mean that you should
> not be contributing here,
> > I mean, since those are your values, why do you feel
> the need to express something
> > that in your own opinion, may not be expressed?
> > 
> > From my own point of view, if I held those
> convictions, I wouldn't see much value in it
> > I would think that it only muddies the waters. But
> perhaps I'm missing something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access, and share your
> photos. See how.
> http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009
> 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/
> 


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail