Struan: I'm a little reluctant to dignify your childish nonsense with a
reply, but the temptation is too great.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Struan Hellier [SMTP:struan@clara.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 6:43 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Port of Ardor?
>
> Greetings,
>
> None of it was personal insult David, it was simply a correct
> appraisal of your conduct and I note
> that you don't even bother to address the points made or give some
> account of your actions. Your
> standards fall well below those acceptable and your failure even to
> register the complaint properly
> is a very good example of precisely that complaint.
>
[David Buchanan] Your demands for an account of my actions is
totally preposterous. Platt and Roger traded a misquote of mine several
times, but I didn't demand an explaination or call them liars. I didn't
resort to insults or wild protests. I just corrected the mistake and
continued the discussion. And if there are any standards here, they are
about intellectual content and common courtesy. Apparently, you can't
meet either of those expectations.
> Your appraisal of my position is (at last) correct but your refutation
> fails.
>
> STRUAN
> "the specific accusation that mainstream empiricists admit only to
> verifiability by the biological
> senses, is quite wrong". (Thank you for quoting correctly, it makes
> sense now).
>
[David Buchanan] My supposed dishonesty is based on the
ommission of just two words from the above quote. This deletion was a
simple mistake, but it hardly matters in terms of my criticism anyway.
It wasn't an intentional deception with some sinister motive and doesn't
add up to much of a distortion even though "only" is a superlative. On
top of that, my supposedly misleading post referenced your original post
specifically so that any interested persons could go directly to the
horse's mouth, so to speak. I even included a description of the context
of your remarks. I think its obvious to any reasonable person that your
accusations and insults are quite ridiculous and I'm amazed that you're
not ashamed of yourself.
> is compatible with this:
>
> QUOTED BY DAVID AS REFUTATION:
> "An idea is empirical if it is derived ultimately from the five
> senses, to which introspection is
> sometimes added."
>
> Although I would take issue with your dictionary definition, it
> clearly allows introspection as part
> of empiricism and so I will accept it, if only for the purpose of this
> reply. Introspection is not a
> biological sense therefore I am correct in my assertion. The simple
> fact is that I'm not saying what
> you think I'm saying. But wait, perhaps I simplify it too much in a
> bid not to be misunderstood. I
> know I'm going to regret this and am inviting a crass response like
> your last one, but here we go
> anyway.
>
[David Buchanan] You take issue with the "Oxford Companion to
Philosophy"? You've got a lot of confidence!
> Of vital importance here is David's statement that, "It's like saying
> that the blank tablet itself
> is a source of sense data rather than the receptor of that data."
> Firstly, sensations are not the
> data of perception. The data are neural signals of action potential
> from the transducer senses and
> so to claim veracity for either of the positions you describe is
> wrong, although the latter is more
> 'wrong' than the former. The concept of 'sense-data' itself is flawed
> and almost all philosophers,
> and certainly all scientists in the field, have abandoned it for the
> reason given. Indeed it is
> David who is insisting upon, and delineating between, subject and
> object, while I, far from
> confusing them, am pointing out the complexity (simplicity!?) of the
> relationship BETWEEN and WITHIN
> an intertwined subject and object which, as I understand it, is very
> MoQ. David seems to be pointing
> towards a subject which receives sense data from an object and then
> makes up its mind what it is
> seeing, but this is far too simplistic. Just as physics is not
> ultimately concerned with substance
> (please leave the dictionary on the shelf David) but RELATIONS (ask a
> physicist what an electron is
> made of!!), so sensations cannot be thought of as some kind of, 'mind
> stuff."
>
[David Buchanan] If I were in a very generous mood I'd say this
requires some explaination. If I were feeling stingy I'd say this is
total BS and an obvious attempt to obfuscate the fact that you have no
idea what you're talking about. But to be flatly rational, I'd say the
vocabulary sounds like 20th century scientifc/medical language and has
little to do with classical empiricsim or the MOQ.
Who do you think you're fooling? Do you take us all for idiots?
Just a little taste of your own medicne. How's it feel? I don't
enjoy it.
DMB
> ------------------------------------------
> Struan Hellier
> < mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
> "All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
> purified in the process."
> (Iris Murdoch)
>
>
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST