and just so you know, I think radical empiricism is a lousy foundation for Quality. Not enough concrete!
John the crazy idealist On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Dave T ... thanks for the gumption and Chautauqua references from > James ... I can believe it, and for me it just re-inforces the > "foundations" of MoQ. Must follow those up. > > You said to Bo. > "I hope I can open your eyes. Keep an open mind, ..." > > I wish you luck. I have several dead ends of unfinshed business with Bo. > > (At the risk of stating the obvious, Dave Buchanan - who has dropped > of the forum for a break recently - has been pushing Jamesian "radical > empiricism" very hard as a foundation for quality - I think he's > right. For me the issue is whether MoQ is any good, solid and useful - > not who invented it - ideas evolve.) > > Regards > Ian > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM, David Thomas > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 9/9/09 2:03 AM, "Bodvar Skutvik" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I have read it all and find it most relevant. An gee Dave, if you could > >> bring the discussion to the social level for a while because it is what > >> sets the MOQ apart. > > > > With the biological/social divided firmed up a little the next step in my > > mind would be trying to clear up the social just prior to intellectual. > But > > I have to warn you that when I read this in the "relativity" thread: > > > > (Bo earlier) > >> Anyway this blunder resulted in the Quality/MOQ "meta-metaphysics" > >> that overrides the MOQ and is a result from Pirsig's disastrous > >> association with James whose view was Pre-conceptual/Conceptual. > > > > I scrambled for the subscribe button. > > > > I had been making what I think is my third pass though the 900 page tome > > "The Writings of William James-A Comprehensive Edition- Edited by John J > > McDermott and feeling philosophical decided to check the discuss archive > to > > review progress. Low and behold I hear you bashing both Pirsig and James > for > > screwing up the MoQ. Oh why? Oh why? I just couldn't let it lie. > > > > As you are aware I believe James' work is foundational to the MoQ and > that > > an understanding of this is instrumental to its long term success. You > > disagree, not just with me, but also RMP on this. I hope I can open your > > eyes. Keep an open mind, I will try to be gentle. > > > > But as you know graphics is my first language, English my second. So I > write > > slowly and think even slower. So it may take a while. > > > > As a tease: Are you aware the James discusses in, (What make a Life > > Significant) a trip to speak at the original Chautauqua as a vehicle to > > discuss what was lacking in life? Or that in another lecture he > discusses, > > gumption? Surely you would have to admit that the term "gumption" in not > > one that commonly comes up in philosophical discussions. Mere > coincidence? > > Maybe. > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > > 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/ > 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/
