On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:00:03 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > PS I must say I fin3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp. Presumably > you've accepted the original assumptions and the first two steps. Most > people either disagree with the original assumption(s), or go for the MGA > (i.e. the "reversal" - the argument that we don't need a physical > universe). Step 3, iirc, is just the demonstration of first person > indeterminacy, which is I would think no more contraversial here than it is > in Everett. >
Well actually, although for me it was about the initial assumption in a lot of ways, step three certainly stuck out the most for the most straightforward reasoning. I have used step three therefore myself, as an example. Because it has knock-down characteristics of what would be expected if my more general argument was possible AND present as an explanation . I would certain admit I'm not at a point of being willing to BEHAVE and/or be purely motivated by, an adequately detached/objective positioning regarding what took place in that thread, particularly toward the end. What I could promise but not be willing to provide or evidence of, is that already by the time that closing phase began, I had actually been through a process at my end, of regarding the overall thread as a failure, and been through and completing a process of analysing that, purely from the perspective (i.e. as a principle of the process) taking full responsibility. Not for some angelic purity, but because there were aspects in play there, involving goals, that are important to me to understand in terms of barriers and skills and competencies at my end. There can be no interest in what other people do wrong when there is commitment to a goal. And in that process I identified several - mostly occurring very early - strategies that I knew would create certain impressions, but that I felt would fall away once things became clearer. I was wrong..for large reasons nothing to do with individuals here (because that wouldn't be interesting either). Wrong because certain impressions can be very very 'sticky', particulary first ones. A case of a well known truth, missed due to a different and new context (for me). So with that said. From where I'm standing Liz, it isn't reasonable to be asking people to bother with anything less than gushing adoration for Bruno and his theory. Not here. -- 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/d/optout.
