[extropy-chat] Re: Harv's Explanation for Slow Progress

[Brett Paatsch]

Jacques wrote:

> Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> > I've made (or tried to make) the
> > point to Spike, to Harvey, to Jacques and to others. 
> > Spike, Harvey and Jacques seems either not have got it or
> > to have disagreed and decided not to voice their reasons for
> > disagreement.
> 
> Not true. I have voiced some reasons. 

Some counterpoint which I replied to. So far you have chosen
not to reply to those replies. 

>You responded by  a message extremely long, 

It was long yes. That can't be helped sometimes. I thought
you threw up some straw men but that you didn't do it as
a tactic so I tried to answer them to give you context. The
ones in response to your comments in particular were written
for you in particular. They possibly add nothing to the argument
for others but my point was to empower you working with what
seemed to be pertinent to you. A good argument and a worthy
and empowering insight is worth a little suboptimal conveying 
I figure until better means of convey it are worked out.  
 
[snip]

> Some of your arguments I found embarrassingly bad. 

Either the arguments are right or wrong there is no point
you being embarrassed on my behalf.  If they are bad
they should fall. The ones in response to your comments
in particular were written for you in particular.

I do not really doubt, although I cannot prove it, that you 
are capable of grasping the truth Jacques *if* you see it as
worth your effort. Its the second bit that is hard. 

There are some non-obvious things however and to get
some of them real intellectual effort not just capacity is
sometimes required. 

> Maybe you have decided to eradicate desire as 
> well from your psychological ontology,

No. I deleted some of the other stuff. But this is not
what I said anywhere nor what I desire. 

> I may give another shot at it soon, but I am a bit busy right
> now.

Your perogative. You don't have an exclusive on busy. 

Regards,
Brett
[Please don't reply to this post Jacques - there is nothing
in it worth replying too the meat is in the other one.]