Hello Andre,
On Mar 6, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha to Andre: > > Right, and Buddhism is pragmatic and is based on a radical empiricism too. > My concern is confining the MoQ to the Jamesian tradition. > > Andre: > No such 'confining' intended Marsha. I should also say that in both ZMM and > LILA, Pirsig has referred more to Taoism and (Zen)Buddhism than to the > Jamesian tradition. I assume Ham has read both books. I used the quote > because I am not sure to what extent Ham is impressed by having his > Essentialist convictions refuted or questioned based on 'mystical' Taoist/ > Zen Buddhist insights, despite his self-proclaimed familiarity with Pirsig's > MOQ. > > Mind you, it seems to me that Ham is not impressed by anything refuting or > even questioning his idea 'Essence'. Too much invested in it I guess. Marsha: I am reminded of the book 'Nonduality' by David Loy, where he compares the Vedantic tradition against the Mahayana tradition; while the points-of-view are very, very different, the conclusions turn out to be the same. What a trick! Sooo interesting. I was thinking this morning that Ham's point-of-view seems confined to and represents the Intellectual Level, but that would be still within the MoQ. (Where else could it be?) How dangerous to demand that MoQ definitions be 'absolutely' NOT this or that. It pleases me when Mark reminds us that RMP provides analogies, not absolutes. And when John reminds us that a metaphysics consists of examining one's assumptive presumptions. Ham is totally cool! I couldn't imagine this list without him. Marsha ___ 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
