[MD] philosophology

[MarshaV]

dmb,

Words and concepts have value within a context which is always changing.  For any philosophical topic there are many, many conflicting opinions as to what is better, and different philosophers often use different definitions of philosophical terms.  And your understanding of the "basic standards of thought" is hardly relevant when you so often resort to insults and toilet talk. -  Your problem with me is that I am not impressed by your bullying baloney;  I recognize it for what it is: baloney.
 
 
Marsha

On Apr 24, 2013, at 8:24 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Marsha said:
> It is not a contradiction to understand that patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and their context are undergoing constant change. Think of the Ship of Theseus, or a parade (Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so that the parade is maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being replaced.  Things can change - flow - and yet have stabilty; think of a river.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> Yes, it is a contradiction. Nothing can maintain a static, stable identity and also constantly change. The ship of Theseus and the Parade of Hume are objects and the question is riddles are about the essences of objects. Your contradiction is a matter of equating opposed concepts, concepts that are define in opposition to each other. The cells in your body are constantly being replaced but the concepts "cell" and "body" remain stable. Even your "defense" displays the same confusion between concepts and reality. That's the difference between static patterns and Dynamic Quality.
> 
> Will you never get this point? Reality is ever-changing and concepts are not reality. The MOQ and its concepts, like all philosophies, static intellectual quality, not reality. Some people can learn faster than others and that's fine. But this level of incorrigibility can't be explained by the standard variations in intelligence. Your case is so extreme that there must be a fairly serious psychological problem at work here. Whatever the cause might be, the effect is a constant stream of interruptions and diversions. You, Marsha, just cannot or will not play this game we call philosophy. I think we can have compassion for your plight and still fully recognize that you are turd in the punchbowl.
> 
> Marsha, your attitude is hateful and irresponsible and amoral. And the actual conceptual content is just incoherent drivel. It's an embarrassment. What did Robert Pirsig ever do to you, Marsha, that cause you to abuse his work like this? What did the English language ever do to deserve this torture? Why do you constantly condemn intellectuals, academic philosophers and William James and then act like this is Pirsig's attitude too? It's obviously not. That's just a reflection of your own anti-intellectualism, resentment, jealousy and fondness for evasion. It's pure bullshit. And it's merely personal too. You just can't stand the idea that I could correct your misunderstanding. Your constantly evasions and dismissals. Lucy. are empty, irrational, ego-driven nonsense. You think you can win the argument through sheer repetition, as if posting your contradictory drivel over and over again will somehow make it coherent. It won't. 
> 
> 
> The MOQ is logically consistent but you, Marsha, are not. Not even close. Don't get me wrong. It's NOT that I'm a huge fan of logic. It's just that you, Marsha, have a serious problem meeting the most basic standards of thought and speech. I'd really rather be talking about something more interesting than contradictory sentences and the meaning of the MOQ's basic terms but that's just the nature your problem whether I like it or not. 
> 
> 
> 
>                         
> 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