At Sat, 20 Feb 1999 16:31:03 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:17:09 -0500
>>From: "joe dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
>>Subject: Re:virus: Re: virus-digest V3 #48
>>
>>>Really? Your philosophy lacks imagination.
>>
>>No, Daniel C. Dennett's philosophy must lack imagination, for it's his example.
>
>I know. I read his books. Dennett is one bad ass philosopher.
>My favorite is _The Intentional Stance_.
>
>But you are quoting him out of context, which makes you, not him,
>the author of the idea you are trying to convey. I don't know what
>Dan would say about these convesations..he might think they are a
>waste of time, or he might look upon them the way a professional
>artist looks on the work of the amature. I hope he would see us
>with a kind eye..but nobody knows what he would think, do we?
>
>Stop cowering behind authority.
To cite is not to cower behind. Do you see farther because you stand on the shoulders of those giants who came before you, or cower behind those shoulders and see nothing but the asses of armpits?
>>>"Unexpressed anger yields unsettling dreams."
>>>
>>>A possible translation. What did you intend when you said
>>>it? Did you mean nothing at all? In that case:
>>
>>Stretches the bounds of poetic metaphor past the breaking point.
>>Not everything's a koan, Reed.
>
>[shrug] Sez you. You gonna try and back up that unsupportable
>assertion or let it lay there like a dead fish?
If everything were a koan, equally nothing would be, for the very word "koan" would lose all definitive power (and yes, I am "cowering behind" Merleau-Ponty's criticism of Sartre's concept of absolute freedom by applying its form to the content of your contention).
>>>" [the sound of one hand clapping] "
>>>
>>>is a better translation. There are an infinte number of
>>>grammatical ways to communicate nothing. Take care,
>>>or you might find they comprise most of what you say.
>>
>>I'll try not to follow your example in this respect.
>
>That's obvious. My question is, why? Why are you
>picking a fight with me? I'm just telling you what I
>think. You seem to be trying to prove yourself in some
>test of minds. If that is the case, you can't win. I
>believe what I am saying..you're just debating. The
>only person who can be shaken from their course is
>you. Now, if you were to match your belief against
>mine, then the outcome is both uncertian and more
>fruitful for everyone.
If you believe in error, you will lose, whether or not you have the necessary cognitive abilities to realize it. Others will realize it for you.
>>BTW, isn't the definition of a meaningless statement that,
>>since it is neither true nor false, that it communicates
>>nothing? (Those sounds are your own petard hoisting
>>you, and the ball falling unplayably in your court).
>
>Well, your play has so far been handicapped by similar
>delusions. I agree that a statement communicating
>nothing is neither true nor false, but this does not mean
>that a statement which is neither true nor false is
>meaningless. It's not.transitive, commutative, I forget
>the word..
A=True B=False C=Meaningless
If A, B or C and if ~A and ~B, then C.
Q.E.D.
>If [A, then B] does not equal [If B then A].
>
>Come on grasshopper, you can do better than that.
I have. You cannot. Your position will not support it.
>>>Nothing is simple, but nothing else is.
I have understood for quite a while now; the contention is about the things you do not yet understand.
Not until you submit or quit.
>>
>>And nothing is unstable.
>
>You do understand! That was great!
>
>Can you sense that?
>
>>As I have counter-demonstrated, you were wrong
>>about being right. Don't sweat it too much, Reed;
>>it happens to the self-believed best of us - even to you.
>
>The isn't over yet, is it? I still warming up.
>Reed
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher