[MD] Step One

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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 s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very clear, no?

Dan comments:

Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to define
the intellectual level as something it is obviously not, at least not
in the framework of the MOQ. SOM as intellect (and I don't care how it
is clothed, it is still SOM as intellect) is an unreasonable position
that leads to nonsensical conclusions that any serious thinker is
bound to reject. It is frustrating to spend so much time on this,
especially when Marsha claims to be interested in Buddhist philopophy
and how it relates to the MOQ. Why on earth would I even bother
getting drawn into another discussion with her when I already know
what the end result will be?

I've tried to engage both her and John in an intelligent discussion
but failed. Maybe it's me. Unlike others here, I am not going to
trumpet how smart I am. Yet I have really tried, only to be met with
silliness, insults, and the same old stale cup of tea that has been
swishing around here for years. Now we've got an umemployed
"scientist" clogging up the airwaves with more foolishness. Oh boy.
Isn't it fun. Please find work soon.

So, no, it is not just you, David. Just so you know,

Dan