Hi John, Dmb may have a James-I-tus virus, constantly pissing random acts of Jamesness. I don't hear him explaining how RMP has made James' philosophies better. Oh no, just endless, boring quotes from his latest book-learning, as if it justifies something. Maybe it does within the few classes he's taken. Other than from a historical perspective, I don't give a bunny's butt about William James. But then dmb has all that intellectual competency, I shouldn't disagree with him.
For the record, RMP, not WJ or dmb, is my favorite philosopher. Marsha On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:33 PM, John Carl wrote: > Sorry marsha, I wasn't talking about your panties, it was a snide aside > aimed at dmb. > > Willam Jame's Varieties is more his baliwick, after all. > > I've actually never had Jalapeno Ice Cream, but I have heard it's good. > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Greetings, >> >> My panties in a bunch? I don't think so. I just posted what I thought to >> be >> the MoQ's point-of-view on theism, and what I perceived to be a problem >> arguing theism as the same as religion. I'm all in favor of a variety of >> religious experiences, but non attributed to any type of other supernatural >> being/s. >> >> Mixed with some cocoa beans, I bet hot, spicy Jalapeno peppers in >> ice cream would be wonderful. I'd try it. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:50 PM, John Carl wrote: >> >>> I hear ya, Marsha. Jalapeno Ice Cream isn't your taste but you won't >> knock >>> the spoon outta somebody else's mouth. >>> >>> Fair enough. >>> >>> I'm only slightly curious why a system which extolls "Varieties" of >>> Religious Experience would get its panties all in a twist in the first >>> place, but hey. That's just me and my Jalapeno flavored world view. >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> John >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:18 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> JC, >>>> >>>> I disagree with you, but I'm not trying to change your mind. I think >> the >>>> concept >>>> chocked full of harmful vibes, but by all means go for it. Let the show >>>> begin. >>>> I'll wander through the stadium getting rich selling moon pie. >>>> >>>> Love you, >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 9, 2010, at 11:49 AM, John Carl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And I think the use of the term "god" much more degrading because of >> the >>>>>> commonly acknowledged definitions, connotations and history. I think >>>> RMP >>>>>> chose the most appropriate label. Stripping the word "god" of all the >>>>>> garbage >>>>>> would be near impossible, imho. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I dunno Marsha. It has been tried before. There seems to me to be a >>>>> central problem in human history that when you throw out "God", you >> throw >>>>> out values. That's the way it's been. The Russian experiment >> (remember >>>> the >>>>> "godless commies?") didn't work out so well and historically, the use >> of >>>> the >>>>> term has served the evolution of society so that evidently those >>>> societies >>>>> that use the term do better than the societies that don't. I feel >> rather >>>>> than tossing it out, the MoQ should analyze. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not the same thing as true atheism. Which is more along the >>>> lines >>>>>>> Krimel advocated with the world and all that is being the product of >>>>>> random >>>>>>> chance, with no positive force behind any of it. No matter what you >>>> call >>>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's the definition of atheism I use: Atheists are people who >> believe >>>>>> that god >>>>>> or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths >>>> and >>>>>> legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. If >>>> Krimel >>>>>> has >>>>>> a more esoteric, sophisticated definition that's fine but it would >> seem >>>> to >>>>>> narrow >>>>>> the discussion to only those individuals who share his definition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Ok Marsha. Let's look at this carefully. "man-made constructs" - what >>>>> isn't? Even to use the term implies a supernatural entity, otherwise >>>> "man" >>>>> - made is meaningless. >>>>> >>>>> Unless you meant gender-wise and you prefer "woman-made constructs". >>>>> >>>>> It's like gav pointed out about "Freedom" is also a man-made construct, >>>> but >>>>> in the MoQ, even subjective patterns have meaning AS patterns of value. >>>>> Since people have gone to war repeatedly over such intellectual >>>> constructs, >>>>> I fail to see how defining them as "meaningless" is helpful in >> analyzing >>>>> them properly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> I agree that one does not need faith to perceive Quality, whereas it >>>> does >>>>>>> take a sort of faith to perceive God. Just one more way that Quality >>>> and >>>>>>> God are differing concepts. I guess the purest way I can make the >>>>>>> distinction is that you can ask if God is any good, but you can't >>>> really >>>>>> ask >>>>>>> if Quality is any good. God is measured by Quality, not the other >> way >>>>>>> around. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does that make sense? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Perfect sense. So what is benefit of holding on to the concept of >> God? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Communication with 95% of US Population, for one. Discourse with most >> of >>>>> written history, for another. Those two alone hold enough benefit to >>>> tempt >>>>> me to go all, "duh!" on you. >>>>> >>>>> But I won't because I'm too respectful. >>>>> >>>>> Quality doesn't obviate God. Quality tames "God". The comparison with >>>> SOM >>>>> is exactly apt - Quality doesn't obviate S/O. Quality tames S/O. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John the lion-tamer, >>>>> 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/md/archives.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> >>>> >>>> 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/md/archives.html >>>> >>> 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/md/archives.html >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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/md/archives.html >> > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
