RE: MD Is Morality Relative?

From: David Buchanan (
Date: Sun Dec 12 2004 - 03:07:45 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "MD Understanding Quality And Power"

    Mark Steven Heyman said to DMB:
    We don't often speak to one another directly, but I just wanted to
    say I carefully read and appreciate every one of your posts. With
    you on one shoulder and Sam Norton on the other, I'm moving forward
    in spite of (because of) all the heated impish and contradictory

    dmb says:
    Heated impish and contradictory whispering? It probably doesn't matter but I
    have to ask, "what does that mean?" In any case, we really should get
    directly engaged in a conversation about some thing or another. Maybe you
    and Sam could "gang up" on me or something. It could be great fun. And I
    read your posts with interest too, thank you very much.

    MSH continued:
    I particularly like the jargon-busting snippet pasted below... I was
    ROFL (does anyone use that abbreviation any more?)...

    dmb says:
    I'm glad you brought that up. I deliberately inserted a paragraph of sheer
    gibberish into a post last weekend strictly to see if anyone would notice.
    You may recall that I had criticized Scott's assertions as gibberish and
    somebody, i forget who, shot back a complaint that said, "we don't need
    anyone to tell us what's gibberish and what isn't, we can see for ourselves,
    you arrogant bastard" or something like that. So I tested his assertion. I
    wrote some gibberish. And you recognized it as gibberish. Even thought it
    was funny. That's why I like you and why we should talk. Anyway, for any
    interested in exploring utter nonsense or investigating words in the shape
    of cow pies, here's my humble attempt again...

    dmb said previously:
    This reminds of a similar thought I had the other day. It concerns my
    cosmology, which is also derived from an intuitive concept, but is
    far more sophisticated insofar as it posits a triple negation of
    nothingness thereby producing a double-double postivity. The
    incremental valuation of the total quality range expands even as it
    reaches back around to form an enclosed circle. When this circle is
    bisected and a square is centered on the dividing line, its vertical
    sides touch that line to form three line segments, two of which are
    identical. (Disregard one of the twins here.) The ratio between the
    two remaining line segments can be found thoughout the forms, not
    matter what quality level we wish to examine. See? The triple
    negation and the double-double cancel or rather balance each other
    out and the magic of the ratio is revealed. Seen this way, God is
    mathematically provable, but such proof requires a human calculator.
    This is the thought that occured to me the other day intuitively.

    dmb continues:
    See? Is that stupid or what? It makes no sense at all. Its not as easy as it
    might seem. Such confusions do not come naturally, but must be earned. It
    takes a deeply neurotic and cluttered mind to be so cryptic and vague about
    absolutely nothing at all. I hate to brag, but when it comes to sheer
    gibberish, I make less sense than anyone. Admit it. Recognize my vitory. Say
    uncle! I'm the stupidest!

    More substantial matter to be addressed tomorrow, but I can't promise to
    repeat this magnificent performance. ;-)

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 12 2004 - 03:14:13 GMT