dmb, On Sep 4, 2013, at 11:37 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. "... what that one stuff of which things and thoughts are both made might be. What is required, James argues, is an approach he calls radical empiricism. Empiricism, he insists, is the opposite of rationalism. Rationalism tends to emphasize universals and to make wholes prior to parts. "Empiricism on the contrary lays the explanatory stress upon the part, the element as an abstraction. To be radical, an empiricism must neither admit into its construction any element that is not directly experienced nor exclude from them any element that is experienced."" "that consciousness is a process and only a process, that what we call objects are really bundles of relations, and that all we have to work with, think about, or live with is somehow experience" "James' factual statement is that our experience isn't just a stream of data, it's a complex process that's full of meaning." Marsha: I do like the use of the word 'process'. James really likes the word 'process'. I take it, dmb, that you are using a definition of perception that is much broader than 'sensory input', including such experiences as nighttime dreams and daydreams? Paul William, though, seems to being using perceptions in the sensory sense (colours, shapes, tactile data, and so on.") Thanks for the help. Marsha 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
