Hi DMB, Marsha may think you are attacking her personally rather than having an intellectual debate.
I would take the similarities between modern philosophy as expressed by James and more in the story telling mode by Pirsig, and the Buddhist branch of Hinduism as indicative of a more fundamental awareness of Man. This is something that Huxley boldly tried to do. So, we could say that James was influenced by Buddhism, or we could say that the things he read about Buddhism resonated with his own awareness. Such awareness attempts to intellectualize that which lies outside the intellect, and must be perceived through means other than logic. If indeed such fundamental awareness (if you will) expressed in convincing manner through concepts of Quality can be achieved, then perhaps we can mainstream MoQ.. At least, that is what I have been trying to do in my own incoherent way. Mark On Oct 29, 2011, at 9:22 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marsha said to dmb: > And the Eastern texts (Buddhist & Vedic) that James read and reread early in > a most difficult period in his life had a profound influence on his thinking. > This investigation is documented in his biography 'William James: In the > Maelstrom of American Modernism' by Robert D. Richardson (pp. 119 &126): > > > dmb says: > Richardson is an excellent intellectual biographer. He not only read > everything James ever wrote, including personal letters, he also read > everything that James read. (I used him extensively in my thesis.) Richardson > also wrote a big fat biography of Emerson, James's godfather. Emerson was > also heavily influenced by Eastern thinking. (Pirsig brought a copy at > Emerson's home, signed it and sent it to me as a gift.) > But more to the point. If James's central ideas, the one's that Pirsig > identifies with, are so heavily influenced by Buddhism, why do you try to use > Buddhism against James? Wouldn't this fact only make it all the more likely > that he'd be similar to Pirisg. Aren't they both American pragmatists with a > big Zen influence? Doesn't just make sense that you should give a bunny's > butt what he thinks? > Being a James hater just doesn't make any sense to me. I know of at least two > different scholars who describe the Buddha himself as a radical empiricist, > which is exactly what James, Dewey and Pirsig call themselves. Why embrace > some and reject the others? It's silly. > > Are you suggesting that James was not an original thinker in his own right? > Is that your point? No serious person could believe that. Just ask > Richardson. > > > > > 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
