Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Thesis / stop altering thread titles

Expand Messages
  • dantreble
    Mark, Below is your first post. I wasn t around to see it the first time as I had not yet joined the group, but you have posted it repeatedly since then. Let s
    Message 1 of 52 , Feb 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark,

      Below is your first post. I wasn't around to see it the first time as
      I had not yet joined the group, but you have posted it repeatedly
      since then. Let's take a look.

      Dan


      Hi y'all, I am a student of Indian Philosophy, and I'd like to stir
      up some trouble here.

      Here are some starting definitions:
      -----------------------------
      Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
      Main Entry: faith
      [...]
      3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
      [...]
      Main Entry: re·li·gion[...]
      4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
      faith [...]
      -----------------------------

      Since science is faith based by the above definition,
      it is also religious by the above definition.
      Y'all, feel free to attack these definitions, as I will defend them.

      My proposed reclassification of words is such:

      I. Philosophy - Religion (the same)
      -A. Analytic Philosophy / Mathematics
      -B. Science - Vijnana (systemitized experietial knowledge)
      --1. Material science
      --2. Yoga (spiritual science)

      What do y'all think?

      shanti
      Mark, Seattle


      OK. The above may look fine to you, and you may have used
      it for various discussions in other groups, but it is not
      an argument. Here why:

      1 No thesis. The only thing you can call a thesis is in
      your opening line. Namely,"... I'd like to stir up some
      trouble here."

      Nice. That's really enlightening of your intention.
      Sort of. How bad can your intentions be if you are student
      of Indian Philosophy? Answer: Considerable. A powerful tool,
      as Philosophy is, in the hands of a troublemaker can be used
      to stir up a LOT of trouble.

      2. Sarting definitions.
      (Note to self: Is this the core of the trouble? Read the
      definitions....Done.)

      3.A statement, actually a *conditional* statement. "If X,
      then Y."

      4. An invitation. "Feel free to attack these definitions,
      as I will defend them."
      (Note to self: The plot thickens. An assault on definitions
      is welcomed by said troublemaker, and a response to them is
      assured. Do I see a reason to "attack these definitions?
      No. They look ok, though they are only individual senses.
      The possible objection must be to their misuse in the
      conditional statement. Troublemaker cannot prove his
      conditional statement is true if his definitions do not
      apply to the words used in the conditional.

      5. A proposed reclassification of words.
      (Note to self: What words? Faith and religion, the words
      that "starting definitions" were provided for? What is this
      chart for? Are the words in the chart to be reclassified?
      What does that mean? Does Troublemaker think that the
      organizational structure of academic disciplines in the
      West should be changed to this structure, which looks
      decidedly Eastern? Could be. He doesn't say it though.
      Is that the trick? Is this ambiguity his intent after all?
      After all, he cannot be nailed down as to what his intent
      is, so he can duck whatever comes his way. He certainly
      doesn't have to prove anything. Trouble indeed.

      6. "What do you all think?"
      (Note to self: I think this sucks.)

      7. "shanti"
      (NTS: Must be an Indian nickname, like "Parashakti." If it
      was a closing salutation, he would define it. Or would he?)

      The response by the group was to attack YOU, not your
      definitions. Why do you suppose that was? You said to
      "feel free to attack them...," but as you are an admitted
      troublemaker who has not been clear you are *perceived* as
      a troublemaker.

      Right off you handle responses by insulting posters'
      intelligence. It is THEIR fault that they are not attacking
      your definitions. THEY just don't get it. If fact, they
      are "WUSSIES."



      As for the clarifications I just posted, I did that because
      you specifically asked for them. As for the rest of the post,
      I'm working on it. Like before, I will wade through the crap
      of your making and get to every point. I'm including more
      on "trivial" matters of clarity, in response to your
      responses, but every point will be covered.

      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --dantreble wrote:
      > > --"Mark" wrote:
      >
      > > > > D: Do you think I pretended to believe you identified your
      > > > argument as being credibility?
      > > >
      > > > -M: "Do you think I pretended to believe you identified your
      > > > argument as being credible?" - Is this what you meant to say?
      > >
      > > > D: No. See below.
      > >
      > > > >D: How could I question your thesis if it was so clear?
      > > >
      > > > -M: Clear thesises are questionable.
      > > >
      > > > Dan, can you please clarify the above few points?
      >
      > > D: Replace "credibility" with "that of the credibility of siddhas/
      > > saints." I'm referring to my telling Charles that what you
      > > had identified as your main argument was your claim about the
      > > siddhas testimony being credible.
      >
      > -M: That is only an example of something that can fit into my
      > taxonomy, not a main argument or an argument.
      >
      > >D: My second question has to do with your thesis not being stated,
      > and my being forced (by you) to assume what it was. I was never
      > certain, even as I was responding to Charles, what it was. Theses
      > have to be stated.
      >
      > -M: My theis was stated on my first post.
      >
      > >D: Not necessarily by the word, but there has to be a thesis
      > statement. It obligates you to prove what you claim. [...]
      >
      > -M: My theis is the taxonomy. This is the issue. Whether or not I
      > stated this clearly in the past is NOT the ISSUE.
      >
      > Are you STILL DODGING?
      >
      > shanti
      > Mark, Seattle
      >
    • Mark
      ... with *spirituality*. I think that most would agree with this. ... possibly *a* result, , not is *the* result. For example, if someone smiles at you it
      Message 52 of 52 , Mar 6, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --dantreble wrote:
        > --"Mark" wrote:

        > > > > > > -M: Lets make it: *Sustainable happiness is the result of
        > > > > > > affecting the spirit in a desired manner.* This aligns
        with *spirituality*. I think that most would agree with this.

        > > > > > > D: [...] What would be accurate would be that "SH is
        possibly *a* result,", not "is *the* result." For example, if
        someone smiles at you it can affect your spirit in a desired manner--
        but you will get over it soon.[...]

        > > > > > -M: If that doesn't lead to sustainable happiness, is it
        > desired? [flag]

        > > > > D: Yes.
        > > >
        > > > -M: Heroin is desired by some people too. In life we learn to
        > > > differentiate between the fleeting and the sustainable.

        > D: Your response to my "Yes" was nonresponsive. My example of
        *being smiled at* proves the point I was making. Your heroin use
        example doesn't disprove it. It does prove that you have no sense
        of logic, but that has been proven often here.

        -M: Different contexts. Heroin is desired by many, but it is not
        universallly desired - not of *intersubjective* desire. The taxonomy
        is in an intersubjective context so this context is what is
        important.[flag]

        > > > > > > > -M: What is the purpose of spirituality if it's not
        > > > > > > > sustainable happiness?[flag]
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > D: In what sense of the definition of "Spirituality"
        > > > > > > > above are you referring to?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: (answered above) [flag]
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > D: The purpose of "the quality or state of being `of,
        relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit'" is unclear.

        > > > > > -M: The purpose is to lead one to sustainable happiness.
        This is what the wisdom traditions (East and West) say.[flag]

        > > > > D: Quote a source to back that up, please. Where does it
        say that "the purpose of spirituality is sustainable happiness"?
        While you are at it, name a few "wisdom traditions" from the East
        and West so that I know what you are talking about.

        > > > -M: East: Vedanta. West: Gnosticism.
        > > > *Sustainable happiness* is infered, but I don't recall their
        > > > language being so direct.

        > D: You cannot quote a source, so all you are left with is
        > your opinon. *You say* that Vedanta and Gnosticism et al. say
        > that "the purpose of spirituality is sustainable happiness."
        > I was looking for what *they* say, not what *you*
        > say. I already heard what *you* say. Idiot.

        -M: I have an opinion and I say that I am authoritative. However you
        claim to not be authoritative. You also can't quote a source for
        your NON-EXISTENT counter-position. Who's the idiot?

        > > > > > > > Compare your question to your other one:
        > > > > > > > "If education isn't to serve this (spirituality), what
        is it supposed to serve?[flag]"

        > > > > > > >D: Education serves the goal of *learning*, and the
        > purpose of spirituality (in whatever sense you mean) is
        > (at least)that of *sustainable happiness*.

        > > > > > > -M: You appear to agree that the goal of spirituality is
        sustainable happiness.

        > > > > > > D: No, I acknowledge that *a* goal of "engaging in
        spiritual activities" is sustainable happiness. I am replacing
        your "spirituality" with "spiritual activities" to make sense of
        there being a "purpose" to "spirituality" at all.

        > > > > > -M: To know whether it is *the* goal(SH) or not, are there
        intersubjective methods to determine this? I say there are. Are
        these methods invalid?[flag]

        > > > > D: What intersubjective methods did you have in mind?
        > > >
        > > > -M: Polling. The algorithmic means to process this data most
        > > > commonly is summation(vote counting), but we may get more
        > > > sophisticated.

        > > > Polling can be used to determine who are the most credible
        > people, (as determined by the method employed). SD2 can be used to
        > determine who the most credible people consider to be the most
        > credible people.

        > D: I already proved that "*the* goal" is incorrect.

        -M: You proved nothing.

        >D: Polling doesn't change that and cannot change that. I only asked
        what intersubjective methods you had in mind so as to be sure of
        what you were talking about.

        -M: Polling can determine intersubjective goals in according the
        polling and analysis used.

        > > > > > > >D: But one who is seeking to learn isn't necessarily
        > > > > > > seeking spiritual guidance. One seeking sustainable
        > > > > > > happiness won't necessarily consult a spiritual
        > > > > > > authority.
        > > >
        > > > > > > -M: If they were seeking sustainable happiness, wouldn't
        > > > whoever they consult be a spiritual authority in their eyes?
        > > >
        > > > > > > D: Not necessarily. They might consult someone that they
        > > > merely trust to be honest in responses.
        > > >
        > > > > > -M: If their goal is susainable happiness, and this SH is
        > > > > > spiritual, and they feel that this other person will help,
        > > > > > doesn't this make the other person a spiritual authority
        by my usage?(I am not asking you to agree with my usage, just agree
        with my consistency.)
        > > >
        > > > > D: Consistency? If you want me to agree with consistency, ask
        > > > > me a question of the form "Is it consistent to...?" Put your
        > > > > ideas down if you want them evaluated.
        > > >
        > > > -M: I just did, but just not in that exact format.

        > D: Put it in that "exact format" if you want a response.
        > If you cannot do it, don't expect a response.

        -M: You are just creating an arbitrary constraint to keep from
        admitting that I am consistent. Like a WUSSY?

        > > > > > > >D: Your assumption that education serves spirituality
        is a value statement, a statement of what you think that education
        *should* serve. It is not a statement of fact, except in limited
        contexts where your ideal may have been realized.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: (Response below.)
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >D:...Education serves the goal of learning.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > -M: Learning what? For what end? Using who's
        standards? And what are these standards?[flag]
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > D: What is learned, to what end, and using who's
        standards depends on one's goals and one's available options.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: Still, available options (are) largely
        preestablished. Who sets these? Under what standards? To what end?
        [flag]
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > D: In the case of higher education, the available options
        are set by those offering the instruction. The standards and ends
        differ according to the nature of the institution.
        > > > > > [...]
        > > > > >
        > > > > > -M: OK, but there are still ends, standards, and other
        > > > > > people. Don't they all have differing ideas of what will
        > > > > > lead to sustainable happiness?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Even a secular education will give tools that one can use
        > > > > > toward sustainable happiness.
        > > >
        > > > > D: Being able to sort through differing ideas is what you
        have a brain for. If you don't like what is being offered, the
        ends, or the other people, you can go elsewhere.

        > > > -M: The issue is the taxonomy and how it relates to education.
        So the idea here is to arrive at a concensous, and not fragment
        ourselves into autonomous agents.

        > D: The issue is the adoption/rejection of your taxonomy. I
        identified a value statement that you were posing as a statement of
        fact.

        -M: The mechanisms for differentiating between *fact* and *value* is
        itself *value*-based in both subjective and intersubjective
        contexts. This makes everything ultimatly value based.

        >D: You seem to agree that it is a value statement, but you
        cite "ends, standards, and other people" with differing ideas of
        what will lead to sustainable happiness as if it were a problem.

        -M: Coming to intersubjective concensous is always a problem.

        >D: There will always be people who disagree, and people are always
        going to need to make choices in their lives. What's the problem?

        -M: The problem is that Secular Humanism is the state religion of
        many countries, and its a mythic-materialist heresy that is
        implimented in a wussified manner.

        Educational systems should be built around more coherent
        philosophies.[flag]

        > > > > > > >D: One can be an autodidact if one chooses, and avoid
        formal instruction entirely.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: To what end?[flag]
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > D: That is up to the autodidact. Different people have
        different goals.

        > > > > > > > > > -M: You and I are communicating. This is a
        Dan/Mark context.
        > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >D: And this context signifies what?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > -M: Meaning that it is a different context than the
        taxonomy would be in with an educational system.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > D: *What* is a different context? The Dan/Mark
        context?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > Let's see: The Dan/Mark context is a different
        context than the taxonomy would be in with an educational system.
        Huh?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: I am just saying that an educational context of the
        > > > taxonomy probably wouldn't be a D/M context.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > D: You just said "`you and I are communicating' is a
        D/M context." Now you are saying that an educational context of
        the taxonomy probably wouldn't be a D/M context. I seem to have
        stated what you said correctly, but I don't understand what it is
        that you are saying. Please develop the idea.
        > > > > > > From an earlier Post, you said: "-M: Yes, because it
        could be interpreted differently and could take a different course
        of evolution. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to argue for or against
        anything outside of my intersubjective context because my arguement
        itself is in my own intersubjective context. "
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > The above does not clear up the matter. You said that it
        > > > > > > is IMPOSSIBLE for you to argue anything outside of your
        own intersubjective context, and I assume by that you mean the
        > > > > > > D/M context. Your taxonomy, however, to be adopted by
        the West would be adopted by educational institutions, which
        > > > > > > would be an educational context and outside of the D/M
        > > > > > > context. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to argue
        for the adoption of your taxonomy by educational institutions. Who
        > > > > > > then, are you arguing for the taxonomy to be adopted
        by? Me, personally? The group?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > -M: This intersubjective context right now is only the
        group, but it can expand. And once adopted by an educational
        > > > > > institution, would probably be no longer part of my
        > > > > > intersubjective context.
        > > >
        > > > > D: So your reason for being here is to expand the context,
        > > > > not to argue for the adoption of your taxonomy by
        educational institutions. Correct?

        > > > -M: I'd say 'to argue for the adoption of the taxonomy by
        educational institutions in order to expand the context'.
        I also enjoy debating.

        >D:[...] Those are two separate issues. One is the adoption of your
        taxonomy, the other is the expansion of the context. One does not
        need to adopt your taxonomy to expand the context.

        -M: It helps to have a field-tested argument.

        >D: Your claimed thesis is that your taxonomy should be adopted, and
        that is what you have failed to show.

        -M: Because people keep DODGING like WUSSIES.

        >D: You haven't expanded the context, either.

        -M: That comes after people stop DODGING like WUSSIES.

        > > > > > > > > > -M: If you were communicating in Russian,
        > > > > > > > > I wouldn't be able to understand you. This would
        > > > > > > > > terminate the discourse, even if you had a
        flawless and articulate arguement. This is an example of how
        engagement is controlling.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > D: No it isn't. It is an example of how
        understanding is controlling in a conversation.[...]
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > -M: Understanding is enabled through compatable
        > > > > > > > engagement.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > D: Yes, but you only said that engagement is
        > > > > > > > controlling. Had you said that "compatable engagement
        is controlling" I would not have disagreed.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > -M: Even non-compatable engagement is controlling
        because people will make decisions based on this non-
        > > > > > > > compatability, such as terminating discourse as
        > > > > > > > with my example.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > D: The "control" of a non-compatible engagement has to
        do with continuing/ending discourse only. Only what is understood
        can be processed.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: Agreed. And this control yields an outcome.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > D: An outcome that isn't relevant to whatever was to be
        > > > > > discussed.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > -M: Agreed, but it was still controlling.
        > > >
        > > > > D: And that irrelevant control matters to you because you
        > > > > want the context to expand, not shrink. Correct?
        > > >
        > > > -M: Irrelevant control is still control. Since it is
        irrelevant, it is undesired.

        > D: Irrelevant control is irrelevant control. Since it is
        irrelevant, it isn't considered. Sanity is desired. You didn't
        answer my question.

        -M: Irrelevant control doesn't matter because it causes context to
        shrink. This is undesireable.

        > > > > > > >M: ...The pursuasion is internal, not external.
        Pursuasion isn't even dependent on external variables, although it
        > > > > > > > usually is, especially with healthy people. As for the
        > > > > > > > mission, I will try being pursuasive, and I did flag
        core questions above.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > D: Another contradiction: "Persuasion isn't even
        dependent on external variables, although it usually is (dependent
        on external variables)..."
        > > >
        > > > > > -M: Not a contradiction. A crazy person can pursuaded by
        a non-existant person. This is an example of where external
        variables aren't needed.
        > > >
        > > > >D: That is an example of insanity. Your contradiction
        > > > is: "Persuasion isn't even dependent although it usually is."
        > > > I'll simplify it further: "P isn't D, although it usually is
        D."

        > > > -M: Thats not a contradiction because they aren't equivalent,
        though they usually overlap.

        > D: It is a contradiction by definition. "Isn't" is the opposite
        of "is." Such nonsense isn't worth consideration.

        -M: So says Dichotomy Dan? There are multiple categories, and non-
        equivalency is different than non-inclusivity.

        'P isn't D'; this doesn't mean that they are always mutually-
        exclusive - to say that, one would say 'P is never D'. In the
        above: 'P is usually D, but isn't always D'.

        So my point still stands: pursuasiveness is in the eye of the
        beholder.

        But with an intersubjective context of qualified observers, I think
        they would consider my arguements to be FAR more pursuasive than
        yours.

        > > > > > > > D: Persuasion is not internal. It is an art. One can
        > > > > > > both qualify and quantify it. To persuade with written
        > > > > > > arguments they have to (at least) be both valid and
        > > > > > > sound. Once recognized as such, one can be persuaded
        to accept them as true. Bad arguments are not persuasive.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: Bad arguments can be pursuasive to people who are
        > > > > > stupid and/or fucked-up. Happens all the time.
        > > > > > Pursuasiveness is in the eye of the beholder.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > D: Persuasiveness is power, a power you don't possess.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > -M: My positions are stronger than your counter-positions.
        > > >
        > > > > D: Your positions are ridiculous.
        > > >
        > > > -M: Compared to what? A vacuum that you take pot-shots from?

        > D: Your positions don't need to be compared with anything.

        -M: Doink! Yes they do. Everthing is in a comparitive context.

        >D: They are ridiculous for being clearly illogical. If you want to
        compare what I write to what you write, I adhere to logic.

        -M: We both have logic(me more than you), but the issue is 'who has
        the better axioms and presuppositions?'

        >D: You do not. Remember that syllogism of yours that you had such
        faith in? I showed you what you could not see[...]

        -M: No, what was that?

        > > > > > >D: What stupid people will believe is irrelevant. If you
        > > > > > were persuasive, and if you had a persuasive argument, you
        > > > > > would have persuaded *someone* here in the 5 months you
        have been here that your argument should be adopted.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > -M: I don't have the power to pursuade DODGING WUSSIES
        other than the fact that they are DODGING WUSSIES.
        > > >
        > > > > D: You have the power to annoy, but not to persuade.
        > > >
        > > > -M: Are you pursuasive with your counter-positions?

        > > > > > >M: You are not making a case for this
        alledged "Western" perspective.

        > > > > > > D: No I'm not. Nor will I. I don't mind it remaining
        > > > > > alleged here.
        > > >
        > > > > > -M: Are you going to use it as a counter-position or not?
        > > > If not, we can drop it.
        > > >
        > > > > D: Consider it dropped.
        > > >
        > > > -M: Then you failed to be pursuasive. You are the *pot calling
        the kettle black*. Like a wussy?

        > D: How did I fail to be persuasive? It was never my intent to
        argue for there being a difference in perspective.

        -M: Even if a position was argued illogicly, it could still be a
        correct position. This is a reason why counter-positions are
        required. The goal is to find the correct position, not to nit-pick
        logical structures.(Not that you have done this successfully against
        my relevant arguements.)

        >D: One has to attempt something to fail. I said that I don't mind
        it remaining "alleged," and I don't. [...]

        -M: So you prefer to be wussified by taking 'pot-shots from a
        vacuum'? As the Church Lady says 'Isn't that CONVENIENT?'

        The classical traditions of China, India, and the West require
        counter-positions. I hope that you won't have Plato, Mencius, and
        Abhinavagupta turn in their graves.

        > > > >D: Incidentally, what do you mean when you say that you
        > > > are "100% Western?" How would that differ from one's being
        100% Eastern? What is the distinction you are making?

        > > > -M: I am not making any distiction because I am 100% Eastern,
        too, however someone can be one and not the other if they have a
        system that is non-compatable with the other. Someone can be less
        than 50% of either if they fail to take positions, like WUSSIES.

        >D: I asked you three questions, and you only answered the last one.
        If you are making no distinction, then why do you use the terms
        Eastern and Western?

        -M: Its only *potentially* distictive. This potential is enough to
        justify use.

        >D:[...]What is the difference between an Eastern and a Western
        position, regardless of how many positions one takes or doesn't take?

        -M: There is no innate difference, but there *can be* a difference.
        (Not mutually exclusive categories as explained above with the 'P is
        not D' vs 'P is never D'.)

        >D: Do you know what a position is?

        -M: Yes, I also know what a potential position is.

        > > > > > > > D: No, I'm not authorizing myself to recognize these
        > > > > > > conditions. "Authorize" implies the giving of power or
        > > > > > > right to act.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > -M: Yes, and *will* power is an example.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > D: Example of what?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > -M: The authorization of action.
        > > >
        > > > > D: Who gives the power to whom?
        > > >
        > > > -M: Consciousness gives power to the mind.

        > D: Conciousness is not a "who," and the mind is not a "whom."

        -M: When consciousness permenently leaves someone, isn't that former
        person just a dead body? So isn't consciousness a person's identity?
        And isn't it what controls/wills and percieves the mind?

        > > > > > > -M: Are you taking an *authoritative* position in this
        > > > > > matter? If you think so, then you are authorizing the
        > > > > > position yourself - I will then try to override that
        > > > > > *authority* by pointing out the performative contradiction
        > > > > > that this authority yields - you would be taking an
        > > > > > authoritative position against self authority.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > D: No, I am not taking an authoritative position in this
        > > > > > matter, if you are referring to "authority always
        > > > > > existing" being the matter. I am voicing my opinion.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > -M: If so, then your opinion has no power, since you are
        not standing behind it with any authority.
        > > >
        > > > > D: My opinion has no power (with thinking people); my
        reasoning does.
        > > >
        > > > -M: Reason only works with shared assumptions. Authority is
        > > needed to go beyond this.

        > D: [...]Nowhere is where you have gone in the last five months.

        -M: I have proved that many here DODGE like WUSSIES. You and others
        have proved NOTHING except y'all's wussified behavior.

        > > > > > >D: I see no reason to believe your view that there is
        always authority.

        > > > > > -M: To bad. I am now the only one with an authoritative
        position since you seem to have OPTED-out.

        > > > > D: You don't have an authoritative position.

        > > > -M: You can't say this with authority since you have optted
        out. Well? Are you still going to take an authoritative position
        against authority?

        > D: The only authority I possess is that which I've earned or has
        been confered upon me by others.

        -M: BULLSHIT! You have authority relative to yourself. And when you
        violate this authority, I have, and will continue to whup you for
        your own good.

        >D: It doesn't just happen because I say so or because I exist.

        -M: BULLSHIT! Truth in an intersubjective context starts with truth
        to onesself.

        >D: You can't even spell "opted,"[...]

        -M: Stick with the subject matter.

        >D: Your fractured logic bears that out, too.

        -M: I have corrected your logical errors above.

        > > > >D: You need to be contrary in order to secure responses. All
        you have is contrariness and "drama."

        > > > -M: Actually I need contrariness instead of the VACUUM that
        you have been offering. You have attacked your own authority, and
        you have accused me of being non-pursuasive while not being
        pursuasive of counter-positions. WUSSIFIED?

        > D: I offer reasoned thinking, and have shown you often to be in
        error.

        -M: I have shown you to be in error.

        >D: That's hardly contributing a vaccum.

        -M: Your errors do contribute to the vaccum as do your lack of
        counter-positions.

        >D: What I said was you need *to be* contrary. You do. Contrariness
        and drama are all you have to offer.

        -M: And I have said that contrariness is what debate requires, and I
        have said that drama works. I wish I didn't have to use drama, but
        people continue to DODGE like WUSSIES.

        >D: I have not attacked my own authority. I have said where it comes
        from. My authority is either earned or conferred upon me.

        -M: This attacks your authority by making it that only OTHERS can
        stand by one's positions. So you don't have the authority to claim
        an authoritative position? Are you taking an authoritative position
        against your own authority? Yes/no?

        >D: You *aren't* persuasive, as is obvious by your having no one
        agree with you after all this time you've been here.

        -M: I have pursuaded others that they DODGE like WUSSIES.

        >D: I *have* had people agree with me concerning you and what you
        write.

        -M: So now dodging wussified mythic-materialist heretics are
        agreeing with one another? Should I be suprised?

        > > > >D:...As Charles put it, "there is nothing there."
        > > >
        > > > -M: Since he attacked NO POSITION of mine, there was 'nothing
        > there'
        > > > with him! Are you defending his hypocrisy, like a WUSSY?
        > >
        > > -M: People this is Dan's ONLY response to my last post:
        > >
        > > >D: I'm agreeing with his assessment. Contrariness...
        > >
        > > -M: Contrariness is how debate works - its an interplay between
        > > positions and counter-positions.

        > D: Debates are more than being contrary. And, as Tammy put
        it, "and yeah, Markie lost the not-so-good fight long ago."

        -M: And did she give even ONE EXAMPLE? No, because she is a dodging
        wussified mythic-materialist heretic.

        > > >D:....and drama are not *nothing*, but they are not worth
        responding to.

        > > -M: Yet you have responded to drama. I use drama because it
        works.

        >D: I don't respond to your drama. I respond in spite of it.

        -M: Thats what you say. I know what works from experience.

        >D: Your drama works only to damage your credibility.

        -M: If I was a dodging wussified mythic-materialist heretic, then I
        would be credible here. I am not, so I don't have credibility
        anyway.

        >D: As Devas responded to your introduction of "WUSSIES," "What a
        fucktard."

        -M: Was she offering a preferable synonym? I don't think so, nor has
        anyone else.

        > > >D: Go play on the freeway.

        > > -M: People, Dan does 14 consecuative DODGES, and refusing to
        take counterpositions, like a WUSSY, so instead of ADMITTING DEFEAT,
        he tells me to play in the freeway. This is not humility to his
        philosophical superior.

        > D: You are a bore, and your fate is to be ignored. Just watch.
        Philosophically, you're a joke.

        -M: And yet I continue to WHUP you for your own good.

        > > Victory isn't only to those who make their case, its also to
        those who can show that the opposition does not follow the rules.

        >D: In the world of philosophy, the *only* rules that apply are that
        of correct thinking.

        -M: NO. Philosophy is communicated in an intersubjective context, so
        the rules are based on what appears to work best for this context.
        And these rules, in turn, determine what *correct thinking* is,
        relative to the rules used.

        >D: You like to debate, but it's the thinking that you have trouble
        with.

        -M: When you improve your thinking, you can make this determination.

        shanti
        Mark, Seattle
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.