[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[118]

>
> Hi Andre,
>


> [Andre]
> So , concluding,i agree with Dave's remark on the quote you are always
> offering  from the moq textbook, ...and that is that Ant has chosen 1 or 2
> words
> a bit uncarefully.(i do not have to quote it back)
> I agree with Dave.
> On the point of the impossibility to import relativism in the moq or
> pragmatism,
> i agree with Dave.
>

[Mark]
What you point to here is the same thing I was pointing to.  Using quotes is
fine, but they must be contextualized with the person's understanding.  I
believe it is not enough to provide a quote to prove a point.  In this
electronic age it is easy to cut and paste indiscriminately and provide
little of one's own thoughts.  Quotes can be used to bolster one's position,
but cannot be used as the final argument.  When you state that certain words
were used uncarefully as you put it, that is an opinion.  Certainly the bulk
of the thesis can be used to explain why you have that opinion, but I did
not see that in your post.  As such it is simply saying that you do not
agree with the words.  But why?  What did your submersion reveal?


[Adrie]
To be honest , Marsha, i'l take nobody's word for granted, (Dmb's authority)
so since you launched this projection based upon Ant's formulation, and
Dave's answers on your questions, i submerged within the material, the
books, relativism,previous postings, etc.
I builded my case to take my position in this matter, not to approach the
conflict or to avoid it, neither to conflict it or to solve it,...in the
importance of making progress,my position demands not to conflict the
evidence.

[Mark]
When you state that you have not found one inconsistency (part deleted),
what you are saying is that you agree with everything proposed.  That is of
course your prerogative.  This does not make it true, necessarily.  The
evidence, as you say, requires interpretation, otherwise it is just data.
 That is done through one's own model, not some existing structure that we
all agree on.  It appears that you are looking for inconsistency by the way
you phrase your appreciation of dmb, and that is appropriate.  If your model
coincides perfectly with dmb's that is good, although somewhat astonishing.

If there is some distaste in being repetitive and having to explain things
again, as I see in many posts, one can always assume that such a deflection
points to an incomplete understanding of such a thing.  Topics do not have
to be all encompassing, and we can work with in small pieces.  I also can
feel somewhat critical about the need to say things over and over in
different ways

Adios,
Mark

>
>
>
>  parser
> 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/md/archives.html
>