Love how you and Andre both point to nowhere...
On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:25 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha: > If you ever ask a real question, I'll be quite surprised and amazed. But > you've given me no reason to suspect that. You've given me every reason to > think quite the opposite. I think you have no business even being here. If > you are genuinely interested in anything I have to say about James and the > MOQ, you can just read what's already in the archives. I mean, you can keep > asking if you like but I have absolutely no interest in talking to you. I > think you fully deserve to be ignored. I'm convinced that the average level > of hostility and stupidity would drop dramatically if you went away from this > place. Sigh. One can hope. > > > >> From: [email protected] >> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:42:59 -0400 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] W.J. Eastern influences >> >> >> 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
