dmb,

If you don't get what Paul Williams has written here about language, then you 
are never going to get Buddhism either.  But, of course, you don't.  You 
understanding, as opposed to direct experience, is as deep as the ink on the 
page.


Marsha 


On Sep 4, 2013, at 9:56 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:

Btw, here is a Paul Williams quote that I found in the MoQ Textbook:  "Williams 
(1988, p.83) states that the First Aspect refers to the falsifying activity of 
language which implies independent and permanent existence to things."



On Sep 4, 2013, at 9:28 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Reply via email to