barrington interview

António Pedro Marques · 15 Oct 2014, 15:19 · from 2014-October.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ant=C3=B3nio_Pedro_Marques?=)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:19:05 +0100
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <CAF1072yfzyrJx+_x-dBH-SepX8FcPqkYGdgZn+rNEWGwi+Fy_A at mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU175-W506FA3CE08D549F76A5127CFAD0 at phx.gbl>
	<543DB9EE.2000004 at hyraxes.com>
	<0A8977EF-A61D-4CF9-8590-9CD458215F2B at gmail.com>
	<CAFjyxiGXkg51tOozE8xP_yT_D7EBQM0R-te34PdNjWw4DJQD9w at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF1072yfzyrJx+_x-dBH-SepX8FcPqkYGdgZn+rNEWGwi+Fy_A at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B0BA5C7A-4D8D-4255-BD83-F67AFD9067A9 at gmail.com>

They're self-absorbed to the point of professing not to know what points the person they've been arguing with is defending. Yet they keep arguing!

No dia 15/10/2014, ?s 15:43, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> escreveu:

> There's an irony here: my understanding of tail chasing is that it describes one being lost in self-absorbed subjectivity - the claim that we can only know the self, falling into the Cartesian trap, assertion of the self and complete inability to extend to the external physical world, is the quintessential act of tail chasing.  The entire debate is moot.  Scientific types assert that we have accomplished much in understanding the mechanism of the world even if we cannot manipulate it at the subatomic level with reliability, unscientific types assert, hey man ... what do we really know?  As it turns out, ridiculous, incredible amounts that can be reliably replicated even with variable  conditions. Ultimately ... whatever.
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Dave Lebling <dlebling at hyraxes.com> wrote:
>> What then are those two points and why are the responses to it tail-chasing? Making such a claim without explicating it is less than helpful.
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two separate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the  rest of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then check in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then proceed to explain it.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Urth Mailing List
>>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141015/813a5290/attachment-0001.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net