p.s. I'm about to start the Kuklick book. I read the biography of James and am looking forward to this book, especially as it is an intellectual biography. But I've just started it and don't think I'll have a lot of time for reading because I have two paintings started.
On Mar 10, 2010, at 1:01 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > John, > > I look forward to a debate between you and Dave. It will be interesting I'm > sure. > I can image that comparing and contrasting Royce & James with the RMP > will be educating. > > > Marsha > > > On Mar 10, 2010, at 12:36 PM, John Carl wrote: > >> For the record, Marsha, RMP is my favorite philosopher also. Positing Royce >> as a brother isn't a denigration of my fave, it's a positive addition. >> >> Likewise, fairly debating dmb on the issue isn't a drag on my time... >> >> It's a positive addition! >> >> Gives me something to contemplate today as a I build chicken coops. >> >> >> John >> >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:57 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 >>> >> 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
