On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:04:35 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 2 February 2014 03:52, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:> > > wrote: > > It's because you don't listen, and then project that quality onto me. It's >> very common I've found. Not everyone is that way though. I have many >> productive conversations with people also. That would be hard to explain if >> it was my fault. > > > It's easy for the pot to call the kettle black. But why talk of fault? >
Because you are blaming me for your irritation. Why else would I talk of fault? > I know it's nice when we can find agreement and it's understandable to > think of such conversations as productive. > That's a pass-agg way of insinuating that I only find agreement productive. Not so. I disagree with others regularly without any disrespect. For me its all about the understanding and ideas, not about worrying what sensibilities might be offended. > But I've found some of my most productive conversations have been with > people that I disagreed with at the outset, but who were able to help me > see where I was in error by a clear and reasoned step-wise argument. > The expectation of clear steps is a noble one, but not necessarily reasonable in this context. Whether pain hurts is not an argument, and how it begins to hurt is not susceptible to a step-by-step analysis. The phenomena we are talking about is beneath analysis. That doesn't mean my hypothesis is beneath analysis, only that sense itself -- the primitive in my model, is meta-a priori. > This has happened more than once on this list. Trouble is, in your case I > rarely find that your responses bear any direct relation to my point, no > matter how painstakingly I try to phrase it; rather you go off on some > tangent of your own. > Why are you expecting me to be led by your train of thought, when you are the one asking me about my view? From my perspective, you are going off into an irrelevant Zeno's paradox of litigious micromanagement, and I'm trying to keep the conversation on track of introducing MSR. > This is what I mean by your tendency to change the subject rather than > respond directly, which strikes me as more like a politician or a lawyer > trying to distract attention from a flaw in his position. > To the contrary, I have answered your questions each time. It seems like you are psychologically blocking it out. > > Things would go better if you could start from the point made and try to > proceed step-by-step to your conclusion rather than just telling people > that they don't understand some hidden sophistication of your theory or > that it trumps reason in some unspecified way. > There's nothing hidden about the theory, and there is nothing in it that trumps reason. In your impatience to dismiss me personally, you are conflating my comments about pansensitivity (which does trump reason as it is Primordial and Absolute in my theory) with my claims about the theory itself. I have no claims about my theory. I think it makes more sense than other views, that's all. Others don't have to agree, but if they want me to change my theory or withdraw it, then they will have to come up with an important point that I have not considered yet. Mostly, the criticisms that I get are not important and not new to me. It gets pretty boring, so I have this page to try to address them: http://multisenserealism.com/the-competition/common-criticisms/ Your POPJ issue *is* actually new to me, but it does not seem to relate to my claims at all, once you understand what I call Eigenmorphism. This means that the material can be better understood as the 'far subconscious' but from the impersonal perspective. There is no conflict or paradox between the exhaustive appearance of causal closure since causality and closure itself is a reflection of the reduced perspective from which they emerge. > You must have noted how Bruno regularly asks you to clarify your > assumptions and principles of derivation because that's the only way that a > theory can be impartially assessed according to common rules of engagement > that everyone can follow. > I try to accommodate Bruno, and anyone else to the extent that I can. > Else all we have is interminable wrangling and talking past each other > that usually ends merely in irritation, as it has unfortunately done in > this case. > If you want to understand my hypothesis, you would have to listen to it rather than making demands and complaints. I don't presume to expect anyone to want to understand it, so that's perfectly fine if you want to ignore me. Craig > > David > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
