From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sat Aug 21 2004 - 17:44:21 BST
Chuck:
On the principle of it takes two to tango
or tangle as my grade school teachers used to
substitute. From my part apologies for any bad
flavors I leave on the receptors of anyone here.
As for the choice of personal or emotional meaning
my tango partner(s) might choose to attribute to
anything I say, about that I can do nothing, except...
I assure you that I am not trying to be dismissive
through cheap emotional tools or attacks or attitudes.
I have little to be pompous about, my accomplishments
in life are far too modest and my 'sarcasm' should come
across as wry humor were we in a face to face situation.
The only pointless exercise is SOM arguments in the
intellectual realm about anything "transcendent" of the
level in which we "operate". (It is akin to arguing the
proper flavor of blue or the appropriate texture of
middle C.)
Thinking back, I may have crossed threads or lost
track of which sub-thread I was in after the POE moved
from "traditional" form to a DQ-SQ formulation. I was
still reacting to some of the traditional form postings.
regarding: "If that isn't an argument then my
understanding of the entire 'argument' concept
is shoddy. Please enlighten me."
The thing I was trying to make a distinction on was
the difference between "engaging an argument"
on the one hand, which involves the structure or form
or content, and the act of "invalidating an argument" on
the other, which seeks to avoid engaging the argument
when at base that specific argument had a flawed base
assumption.
My attempts to move beyond the argument were met
with responses as if I were still arguing. I may have been
ill-trained in Phoolosophy classes, but I was made
to understand a distinction that may have been only
institution specific and meaningless elsewhere.
thanks--mel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Roghair" <ctr@pacificpartssales.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 1:53 PM
Subject: RE: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil
> Mel:
>
> Mel wrote:
>
> The problem of relying upon a form is the risk of becoming
> stuck in that very form. This whole line of discussion seems
> perceived as an argument, which is what I was trying to show
> as a pointless exercise. We are all trapped to the point ,in
> This PARTICULAR Thread, of smothering in SOM.
>
> So, for the sake of this thread:
>
> Wow, you've convinced me there is no god.
>
>
> Chuck responds:
>
> It's difficult to see much beyond your pomposity and sarcasm.
>
> When you argued a point with which I disagreed, I offered a counter-point
to
> which you responded and so-on. If that isn't an argument then my
> understanding of the entire 'argument' concept is shoddy. Please
enlighten
> me.
>
> If this is a "pointless exercise," what are you doing here?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 21 2004 - 18:20:26 BST