I subscribe to your own answer above, though many unfortunately don't.
My stance in life is: that is their problem
Sometimes cheap 'pot-shots' or a less cynical word "joking" helps put things into perspective
Oh, I fully agree. In fact I am seldom serious
I am barking at the inability to be clear which I believe is the cause of the lengthy non-arguments with Doron in many forums. He is just as guilty.
Ah, but then you will be handicapped on this forum; most people take it for granted that everyone else holds the same philosophers etc. for the ones that 'got it right', namely theirs.
Good start in summarizing your epistemology
Logic is a formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. In other words Logic does not define the origin and nature of knowledge it deals with the mechanics of knowledge. However seeing that Doron keeps referring to "direct perception" as the origin of knowledge in OM the discussion is really epistemological.
Therein lies the inability of you and Doron to reach a common basis. He is talking epistemology and you are talking logic.
Yes and no. I have made it a habit to spend some time with most 'groups' that I might or might not disagree with.
Now, when we started talking TM, I knew Doron was on the wrong track; I have had to spend many many months at the TM University just to keep my housing. Therefore I completely understood what TM is about; I "graduated".
If the story had been on Scientology, my knowledge would have been limited to the Fishman Affidavit, but as it stands, TM is more my own than it is his.
Now, as you may have read, I have given Doron ample opportunity to direct OM away from calling traditional Mathematics 'wrong'.
I still stand by that. If Doron wants to start OM as a completely new way of looking at the world, by all means.
But it was his calling specific mathematic constructs wrong that I refuted.
I agree 100%, therefore Doron would do more justice to his ideas, by first developing a clear epistemology and you would do better in this discussion by leaving the logic until this time. Otherwise it is just bickering.
Which the mods identified it as. But even *that* has been mentioned more than once in not only this but numerous other threads.
I think this has been explicit from the word go so I do not count this as an excuse to continue the discussion. However the reason for Doron not answering this question can easily be explained by the presumption by most people on this forum that a "belief" is to be ignored especially in the light of math and science .
I do not agree. It is not ignored, but it never should be confused with 'skeptical thinking' or 'rational thinking'.
If someone makes a statement that '0-dim never fully covers 1-dim' and pits it against standard Mathematics, then it is only reasonable to show that standard Mathematics does have an answer.
If someone makes a statement that OM is the unification of discreet and continuous mathematics, then it is only reasonable to ask for proof on this.
If you read carefully, you will find I easily concede if someone says 'I believe'.
Those were never the statements I argumented against. Just the ones that made any notice of standard Mathematics or Physics.
Therefore in my discussion, belief is not something I need to take into account.
But consider the statement 'you do not get it'. That means, to me, that something should be obvious, even within my context.
It never was.
This is the basis of most discussions on this forum which are the result of either an assumed epistemology by inference (which you subscribe to) or an unclear epistemology (Doron, "the crackpots" and the theists). The extremely difficult task of developing a personal epistemology results in us choosing one or the other.
That is basically what is 'asked' of anyone participating in the threads, yes.
I think it would be hardly practical that everyone starts out with a post in a thread:
"This is my first post in this thread. My epistemology is ... And my arguments are, because of that..."
Most 'first posts' in a thread are done because some emotion triggers a response.
That could be "this is blatantly wrong" or "I know how to ridicule this" or "maybe they haven't really read ..."
The problem I have with Doron specifically is that he makes such broad claims on OM, links or compares it to 'matured' scientific area's (yes, I would even put TM under that) and then calls those 'wrong' without offering proof *in* those area's.
If he started, from the get-go with 'I have thought up OM. It might or might not be something new, it might or might not be useful, that still has to be proven', then my angle on this would have been different.
I would have tried to 'get it' and then worked from there.
But as it is, he stated falsehoods about area's of science in which he clearly has no clout.
