[MD] Social level for humans only

[MarshaV]

On Aug 21, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Krimel wrote:

> [Marsha]
> An analogy of what you're requesting might be like asking someone to explain
> Quantum entanglement using Newtonian proofs.  Of course dmb's trying to
> explain the MoQ using James texts is just as ridiculous.  
> 
> [Krimel]
> I like James' distinction between percepts and concept. His treatment of
> them in Some Problems... is very good and worth your attention. But yeah, at
> some point it is time to move on. Many of the concepts that inform my
> understanding the MoQ didn't exist during James' time. 
> 
> [Marsha]
> I miss Bo.   
> 
> [Krimel]
> I mostly ignored Bo but I did respect the fact that he never whined about
> being attacked and could take it as well as he dished it out.
> 
> I was content to file his posts unread and saw no reason boot him for being
> hardheaded. After all, if we lost all of the hard heads, who'd be left?

 
Marsha:
So now there is nothing to stop you Newtonian, SOM flatlanders from demanding 
Euclidean answers from those with Riemannian insight.  I'm too depressed to 
whine, but if I went riding, you better believe I'd whip the horse's backside too.  
 
 
 
   
 
 


 
___