[Willblake2] First, I am a big believer in James' pluralistic universe. As I recall, he stated that pluralism is more useful, and has fewer philosophical quandaries such as "free will". With that said, Is the philosophy of Quality monistic? That is, does everything spring from Quality, or are there other things which act in concert at the same level with Quality? Or does Quality not qualify for such an interpretation?
[Krimel] I don't think I understand what exactly James was getting at with this one. I had previously assumed him meant something like dualism squared. I have always like Einstein's vision of the goal of physics as finding a single force that blossoms into a universe. So I tend toward monism. But the Harvard discussions lead me to think he is talking about pluralism as a variety of points of view. That works for me a how lot better. I think, along the same lines, that the MoQ is metaphysically monistic but invites a plurality of points of view. I think the article Dave cited (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96may/nitrous/nitrous.htm) covers many of the issues you have raised and I have been going on about the others so much for the past couple of days that anything I could say would just be repetition. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
