[MD] "RMP: Ignoramous or fraud?

[Adrie Kintziger]

Dan used a word not so long ago, that nested itself in my mind.
I liked the word, the term.I knew it would come in very handy later on.
The word was beachcombing.Nobody went along with the story he wanted to
tell,on that moment.
If properly placed in a philosophical context  it would be a good and
usefull tool.

maybe we should be beachcombing Whitehead's work,and comparisons like
offered on the moq page-(Sneddon),as David is pointing towards.
I did only read it diagonally and very fast, but it shows promising toughts.
I do not really oppose to Whitehead because John persists on him,just like
he did with Royce in a somewhat compulsive manner.
Maybe we should start beachcombing along this Sneddon thesis.....,but
this is not the colusseum and we are no gladiators.We should gain
something out of it.Improvement. betterness.Progress=>=>=>

Dan is very correct if he demands a man needs to know his case,there
is no case whatsoever without the correct details.It shows itself in remarks
about reading Northrop/Whitehead in the bowels of the troopship,presenting
half-quote's
or admitting like tuuk did, that he did not really read Lila.

The doll is still to be found whilst beachcombing guys,and nobody here
needs to be a professor.
But simply stating that the moq is invalid (without reading the work),
is drooling all over the place.


I really wished that Dan would be still talking about his beachcombing,
and found some dialogue.I like irl grounded story's.They tend to be very
philosphical.

Adrie



2016-11-01 18:51 GMT+01:00 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:

> And admittedly, I was trying to get a rise out of y'all.  So at least that
> worked.  Thanks dmb for the link to the comparison by Sneddon.  Very
> helpful.
>
> jc
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:50 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My apologies.  I'm getting old I guess, I thought it was Whitehead but
> > you're right Andre of course Andre.
> >
> >
> > sheesh, how embarrasing.  I guess we all know who the REAL ignoramus is.
> >
> > mea culpa
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> John:
> >> So "ignoramous" non-perjorativel then, but the fact is, he DID at least
> >> read some AN Whitehead.  Quotes him
> >> from reading his book on history of philosophy, in the bowels of the
> >> troopship.
> >>
> >> dmb:
> >> And speaking of fraudulent ignoramuses, nobody around here will be
> >> surprised if John has tried to slander Pirsig or if has dishonestly
> tried
> >> to smuggle in a theistic view. Again. It's like a hobby, I guess. Trolls
> >> will be trolls.
> >>
> >> Andre:
> >> And not only that but John bases the slander on false claims he invents
> >> himself. Phaedrus did not read A.N. Whitehead at all in the bowels of
> the
> >> troopship! He was reading F.S.C. Northrop ‘ The Meeting of East and
> West”.
> >> A simple reference to page 117 of ZMM will suffice (Corgi edition).
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "finite players
> > play within boundaries.
> > Infinite players
> > play *with* boundaries."
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "finite players
> play within boundaries.
> Infinite players
> play *with* boundaries."
> 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
>



-- 
parser