On May 28, 2011, at 11:38 AM, david buchanan wrote:
>
>
> dmb says:
> Yea, go ahead a post your "evidence" again. And I will show you once again
> that the quotes do NOT support the "expanded Buddhist understanding".
Marsha:
I'm waiting...
> dmb says:
> Last time, your own evidence said concepts MAY be reified. Common sense,
> conventional thinking is not philosophical.
Marsha:
Really? And is it improper for a philosophical list to discuss conventional
thinking? Or will we hear quotes from James until we fall asleep?
> dmb says:
> It's practical and the average guy does not doubt the existence of the
> traffic light.
Marsha:
Oh my, your discourse is so stimulating.
> dmb says:
> That kind of common sense realism or natural essentialism is NOT a problem.
Marsha:
Is that a "Says dmb" or a "Says James" or what?
> dmb says:
> Realistic conceptualizations work quite unproblematically on the conventional
> level.
Marsha:
You found this out when you wrote you Ph.D. dissertation?
> dmb says:
> Reification becomes a problem when conventional notions are asked to do
> philosophical work, when ordinary thoughts and things become metaphysical or
> ontological categories.
Marsha:
Please offer your source or justification for this conclusion...
> dmb says:
> Pirsig's attack on Plato's fixed and eternal forms and his attack on
> Aristotle's substance are proper attacks on reification, for example. The way
> he and James both insist that subjects and objects are concepts rather than
> the starting points of reality, for example, is an attack on reification.
Marsha:
Zzzz. A is for apple. B is for boy. C is for cat...
> dmb says:
> Your incoherent attack on reification is just a foolish.
Marsha:
I have never attacked 'reification.' If you think I have, please provide
evidence.
> dmb syas:
> You're oblivious to the problem where it actually exists and instead use the
> term to condemn any and all concepts.
Marsha:
This is just your rather clueless opinion.
> dmb says:
> Like I said, if you were able to comprehend the meaning of the term you'd
> reject Bo's position in a very big way.
Marsha:
"Like I said," That's a joke. Do you think I have an interest in what you
say? I do not think you understand Bo's position, and you certainly do not
understand mine. It's must be you urge for the soapbox again.
> dmb says:
> He has reified the MOQ and yet you follow him even while you blather on
> incoherently about reification.
Marsha:
Yes, I do the discussion of the MoQ reifies it. It is a theory, an
intellectual static pattern of value.
> dmb says:
> You know, the cool thing about Buddhism is that it is more like psychology
> than religion. William James thought one particular Buddhist guest speaker at
> Harvard was a better psychologist than himself, and told him so after the
> talk. There are Buddhist scholars who say that the Buddha was a pragmatist
> and a radical empiricist and who say James's work is compatible with Japanese
> Zen Buddhism. My point? Zen and the Art doesn't need any Buddhist expansion
> or correction, least of all from non-Buddhist, non-scholar like you, because
> it's already there.
Marsha:
I have as much right as you to discuss any philosophical topic. If you have
more right, please explain why?
> dmb says:
> Again, I'll remind you that you repeatedly cited an enthusiastic William
> James fan to dispute William James. The quotes you post as evidence for your
> notion of reification do not support that notion at all.
Marsha:
This statement doesn't make sense. If you mean to say that Alan Wallace
respects Williams James, so what?
> dmb says:
> What I don't get is WHY you need to believe that the intellect cannot escape
> SOM or reification.
Marsha:
Because it removes concepts from their context and interdependencies.
Obviously you haven't read my posting's on the 'reification.'
> dmb syas:
> It's pretty clear that you have some kind of deep emotional commitment to the
> belief that intellect is something to killed rather than cultivated.
Marsha:
Have you RMP's words in Chapter 32:
While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns.
Kill them completely
And then follow Dynamic Quality
And morality will be served.
> dmb says:
> But why do you NEED to believe that?
Marsha:
I do not NEED to believe this.
> dmb says:
> Is like a sour grapes thing?
Marsha:
Why don't you ask RMP why he had the need to write it?
> dmb says:
> You're tired of being told that you have the wrong idea and that your
> laboring under a misconception and so rather than do the work it takes to
> think things through you simply decided that ideas and conceptions themselves
> are inherently bad. You've adopted a virulent form of anti-intellectualism in
> order to protect your self-esteem, to get off the hook and otherwise evade
> the issues. That's why nobody can ever have anything like a real conversation
> with you.
Marsha:
This is nonsense. It's not very intellectual. It's simply dressing up
name-calling. Problem may be that you do not know the difference.
> dmb says:
> If I present the evidence, you say it doesn't explain anything or dismiss it
> as authoritarian rather than authoritative. (Man, is that dumb!)
Marsha:
You evidence is usually just your opinion and some insults thrown in to
distract from the incompleteness of your thinking.
> dmb says:
> If I explain, you ask for evidence. If I use logic, you don't see the point.
Marsha:
You are still dreaming of presenting a logical argument. You do not seem to
know the difference between presenting a logical thesis and your opinion.
> dmb says:
> Considering the context, that behavior is wildly inappropriate.
Marsha:
What context would that be? From your posts, I cannot consider you an
authority.
> dmb says:
> Words and ideas are our common currency, the medium of exchange, not the root
> of all evil. You're betting that cash is no good and yet cash is all you have
> to bet. It's simply incoherent.
Marsha:
And this kind of writing is suppose to pass for intellectual discourse? You've
got to be kidding!!!
> dmb says:
> Nobody thinks you're going to be persuaded by this or any other argument.
Marsha:
There was no argument presented.
> dmb says:
> I'm not really talking to you because there is no talking to you. Ask
> anyone who's ever tried.
Marsha:
Awww. Aren't you getting enough attention that you need to lower yourself to
this level?
___
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
