Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic

From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 16:49:35 GMT

  • Next message: Ron Winchester: "Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic"

    I am sorry you feel so threatened by women who disagree with you Chuck but I will not take your sexist, immature, ignorant advice. Why don't you be less Rigelian and worry a little more about the quality of your contributions and less about mine.
      
    Erin

    Charles Roghair <ctr@pacificpartssales.com> wrote:
    Erin:

    It's better for everyone's understanding when you're off fiddling with
    your domain or whatever it is you were doing before joining this
    discussion; please go back to that and let the men talk.

    No offense, Marsha.

    Best regards,

    Chuck

    On Feb 15, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Erin wrote:

    >
    >
    > Ron Winchester
    wrote:
    >
    > RON: Each individual can have their own exprience, and it
    > can be empirical to them. Whether its interpretation is emprical to
    > society
    > depends on the static patterns, and whether it works its way in.
    >
    > ERIN: So you do see a difference between these experiences? Then why
    > not
    > distinguish them. To me it is like saying dynamic quality and static
    > quality is just quality so just call them quality. If things are
    > different
    > in some way then I find it helps to clarify to distinguish them. I
    > would
    > call both experience but only the latter empirical.
    >
    >
    > RON: I see no reason to categorize the experiences under subcategories
    > of what is
    > legitimate, and what is not.
    >
    > ERIN: I already said I don't agree with interchanging verifiable and
    > validity/legitimacy
    >
    > RON:
    > Simple fifth grade English taught us how to understand the meanings
    > of words
    > in the context in which we read them. As opposed to categorizing,
    > defining,
    > and explaining them, why not simply read the words are they were
    > written to
    > mean?
    >
    > ERIN: I don't know what you are trying to say here
    >
    > RON: I must come clean and tell you that I see all this attention to
    > the word as
    > silly; as a knee jerk, emotional reaction. Otherwise, it is as Scott
    > offered
    > earlier -- reducing philosophy to a game. Either way, I see it as
    > counter
    > productive to advancing your understanding.
    >
    > ERIN: I will choose what is silly to spend time on and what is
    > helpful to advancing my understanding. If you find it is not helping
    > your understanding then ignore the thread.
    >

    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 : Wed Feb 16 2005 - 16:54:16 GMT