[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[skutvik at online.no]

Dear Dave

Bo before
> > Spot on Dave and thanks for not letting the "debunk Bo" urge get the
> > best of you. I admire you for that.

DMB:
> Thanks Bo, but I certainly had no intention of defending your position. As
> far as I'm concerned it has already been thoroughly debunked and the those
> who think otherwise simply do not comprehend what SOM of the MOQ is,
> especially you and Platt. 

I did not really think you had decided to become a SOL-ist, but could 
not help my glee when you unavoidably were led into it when trying to 
USE the MOQ instead of the tiresome "debunking Bo" argument.   

> > Symbols (vs what is symbolized) and abstractions (vs concrete) are part
> > of intellect's S/O.

dmb says:
> This is a misconception and it is just one of many examples. In the MOQ,
> the difference between abstractions and concrete reality is the difference
> between static intellectual patterns and direct everyday experience. It's
> the difference between sq and DQ. You are simply misconstruing the MOQ as
> SOM.

This is too silly, not your staunched supporter will vouch for THAT. I 
rest my case.   

> I really, really hate what you're doing to this place, clogging it up with
> this hair-brained nonsense all the time. I listened to it for over a
> decade now and I'm just sick to death of it. Please, get a hobby. Go away.
> Let us do philosophy, will you? That would be "a promising development".

Yes, yes, here comes the real message, but I still appreciate the fact 
that when starting from MOQ's premises the S/O intellect inevitably 
pops up, you gave us a demonstration of it. No doubt you just want to 
philosoplologize but, now the MOQ seems safe from that lure.

Bodvar