David, I don't know, but I sure do. And I haven't read Schopenhauer but I'm enjoying Nietzsche who Randall Auxier said was, like Royce, A disciple of Shopenhauer, descended from Emerson! So that sounds pretty darn perennial to me, i.e. All were sniffing up the same tree.
Causality as will, sounds like causality as preference, doesn't it? John On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:52 AM, David Morey <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi MOQers > > Tragic lack of women round here, anyway, anyone ever had a look at > Schopenhauer from an MOQ perspective? Some link between his idea of will > and DQ, and his idea of representations and SQ, especially when MOQ is seen > as an idealist rather than realist philosophy, although I have my concerns > about that. > > Schopenhauer is also very keen to see all perceptions as based on > intellect, based on his analysis of experience, but it is intellect without > concepts, rather a sort of necessary non-conscious set of > reasons/assumptions that are requires a prior for there to be any possible > experience, all linked to causality which Schopenhauer sees as taking the > character of Will, a sort of active DQ. Does MOQ see DQ as active? > > Any thoughts? > > All the best > David M > 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 > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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
