Dan__Adrie (Dan) That's my thinking as well. We create reality, not the other way around. And those who fight against this notion are so convinced they are independent observers of a separate reality it is impossible to reason with them. They throw up a whole host of reasons why this cannot possibly be so.
Thanks again for writing ----------------------------------- Well, i'm still reading and you kept on writing. Times were different for me.Changed some things. I have a nice pond nowadays and some koi's.Need to restore my piece of mind since my mother took her own life. My son left our house to start his future,and my daughter will leave in the fall... So we will be on our own again, without the childen.Also i'm heading for my retirement, probably only 22 months to go. Yeah, Bo's insights. Strange, i liked Bodvar, like everyone btw.Apparently he became obsessional with the presented material,and tought he had to be part of the reasoning alltogether. Still, i do remeber one of your phrase's about Bo, that he used to be a sharp thinker, and that is true if one viewes the archives. Sad , really. One of my sons main themes is always,"something new has to be old for 95 % or people will not accept it" The intellectual horizon is in front of us,not behind our empiric cluster of toughts. Good to read you. Adrie 2013/4/23 MarshaV <[email protected]> > > dmb, > > RMP may explain the MoQ in any way he thinks helpful; it's his baby. He > states "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.". You > are not RMP, and your rationalizing such parasitic activity has not been > elevated by your pathetic justification. > > "Historically music comes before the intellectual analysis of music and > therefore is not dependent on it. Musicology, art and literary criticism, > and philosophology are described in Lila as parasitic fields that sometimes > try to control their host." > (RMP, 'LILA's Child', Annotation 54 > > > Marsha > > > > On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:13 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Marsha said dmb: > > > > > > It's interesting that you are ignoring the subject/topic, > philosophology, where RMP states: > > > > > > "Historically music comes before the intellectual analysis of music and > therefore is not dependent on it. Musicology, art and literary criticism, > and philosophology are described in Lila as parasitic fields that sometimes > try to control their host." (RMP, 'LILA's Child', Annotation 54 > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > Ignoring the topic of philosophology? That's not true at all. Yesterday > in this thread I said, "Comparing one thinker to another is not the > problem. Original thinking is better than comparative analysis and that's > what separates a philosopher from a philosophologist but that doesn't mean > that philosophology is evil or whatever. Pirsig compares and contrasts all > kinds of thinkers throughout both his books. He draws a contrast between > his Quality and Hegel's Absolute and Plato's Good, for example, and says > Plotinus and Eckhart are his favorite mystics. He was impressed with the > number of fits and matches he found in James's work. He compares his > Quality with the Tao and his philosophy agrees with the perennial > philosophy, Zen Buddhism, philosophical mysticism, pragmatism, radical > empiricism. I don't suppose anyone could be foolish enough to believe we > should avoid such comparisons (except Marsha, apparently) or foolish > enough to believe that such comparisons are not illumin > at > > ing and/or clarifying (except Marsha, apparently). Besides, if one > wanted to present an original philosophical work, why would anyone want to > present it in an internet discussion group? A forum like this has its own > kind of dynamism anyway; it's a place where you have to respond to whatever > comes up and otherwise think on your feet. It's almost like a living > conversation and that should be enough to keep things from getting too > static. The problem with philosophology, as you can see from Pirsig's > comments, is the dismissive, undermining, subordination of the MOQ by those > who "classify it so that they don't have to see it as anything new." That's > what he said in Liverpool too, where he objected to the philosophologist > who would dismiss the MOQ for saying what's already been said and doing > what's already been done. This kind of classification is not done for the > purpose of illuminating or clarifying the MOQ but rather the opposite. It > just puts the MOQ is a pigeon hole, slaps > > > a label on it, puts it in a drawer and forgets about it. This is done, > Pirsig says, "by people who are not seeking to understand what is written"." > > > > But I guess you just ignored that, huh Marsha? Hypocrite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > -- parser 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
