[MD] Step One

[MarshaV]

dmb,

Oh right!  You didn't say anything.  Too risky.  Here what you wrote:


       dmb says:
       Yes, it's a refutation. I sincerely hope you'll think about it and come to your own conclusions about what and how.
       But here's a hint. The key words are "meditation" and "clap-trap". 


You do make me laugh, dmb.  As if your insults had value???   Hahahahahaha!   


Marsha  









On Oct 21, 2010, at 5:04 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Marsha said to dmb:
> 
> ... You want to think meditation is clap-trap, then don't excited with me that you do not understand. 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Typical. I can certainly count on you to misread everything. I posted a quote saying that everyone meditates even if their culture tells them they don't. And I post another saying that Americans don't need to go East for their mysticism because clap-trap free mysticism has always been apart of our culture. And so you think I was saying that meditation is clap-trap? No, that was Pirsig saying that meditation is natural, that it exists in our experience whether we realize it or call it by that name or not. And the second quote was Pirsig saying there's no reason to make a big fuss over mysticism, which, by the way, goes quite nicely with Pirsig's claim about DQ being simple and immediate, being direct everyday experience. 
> 
> And those quotes were posted to dispute your delusional self-regard as somehow special because you meditate. Those quotes were posted to dispute your taste for parroting exotic Eastern jargon that you don't really understand - as opposed to talking in the ordinary language of Pirsig or James. It's just clap-trap as camouflage. It's a pretentious pose and if it weren't you'd be making a hell of a lot more less because of it, not less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:09 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> 
>>> You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a childish evasion.
>>> 
>>> Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as "a formalized subject/object level (SOM)"? 
>>> 
>>> How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining "food" as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%.
>>> 
>>> That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I characterized your reasoning as "spectacularly bad" and "spectacularly stupid" but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without embarrassment. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d.
>>> 
>>> Therefore:
>>> 
>>> Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in recent historic times?
>>> 
>>> C'mon. Anyone can see how spectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very clear, no? 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 		 	   		  
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 		 	   		  
> 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


 
___