dmb, Okay, this is all you've can offer. I thought radical empiricism accepted more than just sensual experiences.
RMP wrote "As far as I know the MOQ does not trash the SOM. It contains the SOM within a larger system. The only thing it trashes is the SOM assertion that values are unreal." I don't like your disease/cure metaphor. Do you have an intelligent question to ask? Marsha On Sep 4, 2013, at 11:37 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > dmb said to Andre: > > ...There's always something low and slimy about her [Marsha's] escape, as > your list of 10 slithers amply showed. Instead of responding legitimately, > her tactic is to cite some bogus reason why she doesn't have to respond. > These bogus "reasons" are always vague and they're often insulting. One of my > favorites is often repeated. She never literally said "you're not the boss of > me" (like a child would) but that's what many of her "reasons" amount to.... > > > > Marsha replied: > > > A MoQ is the sum of all the readings of the texts; there is no one, correct > reading. There is no priest required to explain THE MoQ. Your complaints > are hilarious. > > > dmb says: > Thanks for providing a fresh example of this particular way to slither away. > To say "there is no priest required" is just another way to say "you're not > the boss of me". It's an illegitimate response for several reasons, the most > obvious being that nobody claimed to be a priest nor claimed that one was > required. It disputes an assertion made by no one - and leaves the actual > assertions untouched. A related error is the implication that, since there > can be more than one correct reading, your reading can't be wrong. It simply > doesn't follow and, again, it's an evasion of the actual criticisms wherein I > carefully explain how you are wrong. > > Also, you've asked about radical empiricism a couple of times but you asked > the question directly AFTER you were already given the answer and dismissed > without any engagement, as is your standard procedure. > > How are you not ashamed of yourself? What the heck is wrong with you? Don't > you care that this behavior makes you look like an empty-headed troll? > > Anyway, here's the answer you're pretending to seek. Notice how James, Pirsig > and Buddhism are all saying the same thing here? Radical empiricism is found > in the MOQ and in Buddhism so that they all illuminate each other. If you > don't get what Pirsig is saying about James, then you are never going to get > Buddhism either - you pretentious poser. > > > While subject-object science can rightly be identified with the "disease", > the "cure" is NOT to "study only meditative mysticism". The cure is the MOQ, > a philosophy that incorporates and acknowledges the empirical validity of > mystic meditation. It's a philosophy that's far more empirical than > subject-object science and including these kinds of experiences is an example > of the MOQ's radical empiricism. So I take the quote to mean that the purpose > of meditation is to improve the quality of thought by bringing it closer to > actual experience, not to eliminate thought. This expanded empiricism is > precisely what eliminates SOM and the reification problem, just as in > Buddhism. > > > "In order to understand what is being said here, one should try and imagine > all things, objects of experience and oneself, the one who is experiencing, > as just a flow of perceptions. We do not know that there is something "out > there". We have only experiences of colours, shapes, tactile data, and so on. > We also don't know that we ourselves are anything than a further series of > experiences. Taken together, there is only an ever-changing flow of > perceptions (vijnaptimatra)... Due to our beginningless ignorance we > construct these perceptions into enduring subjects and objects confronting > each other. This is irrational, things are not really like that, and it leads > to suffering and frustration. The constructed objects are the conceptualised > aspect. The flow of perceptions which forms the basis for our mistaken > constructions is the dependent aspect." (Paul Williams, "Mahayana Buddhism", > Routledge, 1989, p.83/84). > > > And what would that do to the quality of one's life, anyway? We can't go > through life without thinking the only issue is whether we do it badly or > not. In any case, the quote should be continued because Pirsig goes on to say > something about SOM as a stale, confusing attachment of the past and about > the MOQ as an improved way of thinking.... > > "In a subject object metaphysics morals and art are worlds apart... But in > the Metaphysics of Quality that division doesn't exist. They're the same. > They both become much more intelligible when references to what is subject > and objective are completely thrown away and references to what is static and > what is Dynamic are taken up instead." > > > "The second of James' two main systems of philosophy ...was his radical > empiricism. By this he meant that subjects and objects are secondary. They > are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he described as > 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later > reflection with its conceptual categories.' In this basic flux of experience, > the distinctions of reflective thought, such as those between consciousness > and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the > forms we make them. ...James had condensed this description to a single > sentence: There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, > because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic > and flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used > for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality." (364-5) > > > 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
