dmb,
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.
Do you have an intelligent question to ask?
Marsha
On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:33 PM, david buchanan
dmb,
Besides asking you to explain Radical Empiricism, here's another question for
you? How do we encourage others (Ian, Dave T., David M., Matt K., Steve P.,
etc.) to participate without subjecting them an intellectual shutdown via ad
hominem attacks, because I dearly would like to hear
Marsha to Andre:
Truth is not supposed to be determined by social popularity.
Andre:
And this is all you have to say in response to my post? Nr 11...a
non-sensical retort. And that from somebody who hates truths of any
kind. Another indication of your confused state.
Just go away Marsha,
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
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.
Andre,
No, I am not somebody who hates truths of any kind. I do not label 'truth'
wrong, or bad. I do not reject or accept truth. I find it more meaningful to
use RMP's vernacular and address knowledge (stuff in the encyclopedia) as
*static patterns of value* rather than truths. And I
Hi MarshaV and all,
Is there a determinable order of concepts? Evolution was suggested as one
order, color variety is another order, musical scale is another order.
These all seem to be denied in indefinable DQ. Order and concepts are at
odds if they do not have a connection. IMHO levels in
dmb,
On Sep 4, 2013, at 11:37 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com 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
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 val...@att.net wrote:
dmb,
