Hi dmb,
On Sep 20, 2012, at 4:02 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Seriously. How can anyone read these quotes from Pirsig and still conclude > that James's work is anything other than helpful? That conclusion, one held > by Marsha, isn't even remotely plausible. I think it's so obviously wrong > that it's not even worth disputing and yet here I am disputing it. It's like > having to argue that a mechanic need wrenches and screwdrivers and such. It's > such a no-brainer that I resent spending time on it and I'm kinda horrified > that this is not already completely obvious to every single MOQer. If you > don't understand this, dear reader, then you just don't get what Pirsig is > saying. (I can see that Arlo totally gets it and that Marsha totally doesn't.) Why is it that nine out of ten of your posts include some attack on my statements or me? Is that the best you can do while you are waiting for an interesting idea of your own. Having nothing to say you puff yourself up by bumping against me. Poor dmb. And addressing "dear reader" as if you are trying to convince them of your authority. But you go ahead and present your contrast and comparison with W. James, I won't interfere. Well, not other than to remind you what RMP wrote in October 2005 (long after the discussion concerning W. James in LILA): "The Metaphysics of Quality is not intended to be within any philosophic tradition, although obviously it was not written in a vacuum. My first awareness that it resembled James' work came from a magazine review long after “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” was published. The Metaphysics of Quality's central idea that the world is nothing but value is not part of any philosophic tradition that I know of. I have proposed it because it seems to me that when you look into it carefully it makes more sense than all the other things the world is supposed to be composed of. One particular strength lies in its applicability to quantum physics, where substance has been dismissed but nothing except arcane mathematical formulae has really replaced it." As I have said I am very interested in investigating the MoQ as a bridge between the East and West. From RMP's initial interest in Northrop's 'Meeting of East and West: An Inquiry Concerning World Understanding' and his recommendation of Steve Hagan's book ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, I think he is quite interested in accommodating both East and West philosophies. I was studying Hindu philosophy in the early 80s and where my interest in philosophy originated. So Arlo gets the point, which is your point-of-view, and that is what your really care about: your intellectual investment in William James. By the way, I've been reading Schopenhauer. From what I've read he had a great influence on William James. It might be Schopenhauer's doctrine that concepts must be verifiable against perception (experience) as well as derived from it. Sound familiar? Marsha p.s. Gotta love your "truths are true" statement. Great clarity! And the "in relation to experience" is just your cowardly way of avoiding the word 'relative'. ___ 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
