On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:17 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > > Marsha said: > Bob Doyle stated that W.J. was the first! And he bemoaned that other > philosophers borrowed from W.J. without giving him proper credit. But that's > just foolishness. It has been documented that W.J. read and reread, in the > often cited crisis period of his life, Buddhist and Vedic texts. ... > > Marsha later added: > The post was about William James and the comment made by Bob Doyle, and a > legitimate question. > > > dmb says: > Bob Doyle's statement has nothing to do with Buddhism or Vedic texts. He said > James was the first to come up with a two-stage model of free will. Your > question is not only illegitimate, it's predicated on a fictional claim that > no sane person would make.
Marsha: Yes, I know. Doyle was chastising many philosophers for borrowing from W.J. without giving him credit. I was pointing out that W.J. was influenced by Buddhist and Vedic thinking and failed to give these ancient traditions their proper due. The legitimate question: How does William James improve the MoQ? As far as I can see he does not. It just points backwards and has nothing to say about Quality, static patterns, or the hierarchical, evolutionary structure that helps evaluate many conflicting patterns. I would like to have you address how the MoQ expands and improves Jamesian philosophical ideas. ___ 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
