Randy Auxier at Carbondale.
Thanks John, noted.
Ian
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
I took it as a very positive sign when, in Feb. of 07 I was meeting with
Hilary and Ruth Anna Putnam about Hilary's forthcoming volume in the
Library of Living
Ant said,
Platonic arrogance (if you like) that everything must be defined
in some way. So out goes Dynamic Quality straight away and in comes
in all those old SOM problems (that the MOQ is designed to avoid)!
If only more MoQists understood that.
Ian
PS In my experience failure to engage
And to join the dots with the other thread,
In my recent post Hold Your Definition, reviewing Dennett's
Intuition Pumps he also says
One of my guilty pleasures is watching eminent scientists, who only a
few years ago expressed withering contempt for philosophy, stumble
embarrassingly in their own
John,
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
I took it as a very positive sign when, in Feb. of 07 I was meeting with
Hilary and Ruth Anna Putnam about Hilary's forthcoming volume in the
Library of Living Philosophers, and gracious as he always is, Hilary
Hi Dan,
I've not read Auxier yet either, but you referred to:
... an apparent opposition between religion and
science that I thought Robert Pirsig answered well in his writings.
Rather than trying to bring back some vaguely veiled religious
fundamentalism to combat the rise of science, isn't it
Ant, a check,
Where does Hawking say ZMM influenced his writing of Brief History ?
(I can see he says he was flattered by the comparison.)
Ian
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
(In the context of Stephen Hawking quoting ZMM as an inspiration for his 1988
Quote,Dr Mc Watt (decontexted);;
When Stephen Hawking's comment that philosophy is dead is put in its
wider context, I couldn't agree more. Philip Goff, a young philosopher at
my old
Department helpfully provides this context for us:
I don't imagine that Hawking is in a hurry to answer this
Ian to Dan:
All I would question is why a negative reaction to veiled religious
fundamentlism - dogmatic fundamentalism bad sure, but what about faith
in quality as the basis of a living metaphysics.
Andre:
Because 'faith in quality' suggests a belief, a trust in whatever one
means by
Dan said to John:
Without reading the book I see that there seems to be an apparent opposition
between religion and science that I thought Robert Pirsig answered well in his
writings. Rather than trying to bring back some vaguely veiled religious
fundamentalism to combat the rise of science,
Ian,
I think it was in an article published during September 20013 in the UK's
Independent newspaper. Like me, you have obviously done a Google search for it
but it ain't on the internet any more!
When I have a spare moment, I'll have a look through my MOQ archives and see if
I can find the
Ian said:
All I would question is why a negative reaction to veiled religious
fundamentlism - dogmatic fundamentalism bad sure, but what about faith in
quality as the basis of a living metaphysics.
Andre replied:
Because 'faith in quality' suggests a belief, a trust in whatever one means by
dmb,
dmb says:
My critical engagement with what you're saying shows that your complaint
is baseless. You just don't want to hear it. Apparently, you just cannot
entertain any doubts about what you're regardless of what anyone says about
it.
Jc: This needs a bit of editing dude, before I
Ant,
John Carl: That's very gratifying to hear, Ant. We haven't really had much
intercourse yet and I'm not absolutely positive of your integrity but this
is very reassuring. You seem like a good guy.
Ant McWatt comments:
John, is that a socially good guy (i.e. one of the boys at the
dmb,
the religious reactionaries you talk about are just as much my enemies as
yours. It's ridiculous to go on prating about it all the time the way you
do. Can't you find something else to fasten upon or are you just a
one-trick-doggie?
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:33 AM, david
dmb says:
Good point, Andre (and Ant). DQ is experience itself, which is also known as the
primary empirical reality, while faith is approximately the opposite of that.
Andre:
Thanks dmb. The grotesque problem with Ian's suggestion is that it seriously
nullifies Pirsig's effort and shows a
Ant,
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
On March 18th 2014, John Carl mentioned his meeting with the one and only
Hilary Putnam:
Jc: If by his you mean Randal Auxier, Ant. You are correct. I've not
had the pleasure pesonally.
I took it as a
All,
I'm just going to sum up my response to y'all in a big lump sum.
Wouldn't want to go over my limit, heh.
But first, Dan.
Dan, I'll give you a copy if you'll give me Lila's child. I somehow lost
my copy over the years and it looks like I'm going to need it. Not with
you guys, of course -
I have indicated that ethics is First Philosophy for Royce, and
metaphysics is a derivative branch of the analysis of values, proceeding on
the basis of postulates. Metaphysics cannot discharge these postulates;
that work depends upon moral philosophy, which is through and through
practical. The
John to All:
But I see my way clear now to a masterly thesis. I'ce got three
paragraphs already circled in Randy's book that I KNOW are MoQ orthodox,
and while I can't sell anyone on the idea that Royce co responds with
Pirsig, (even tho they never once corresponded at all) I'm thinking I
bet
I should have something for you tomorrow
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 19, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Andre andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote:
John to All:
But I see my way clear now to a masterly thesis. I'ce got three paragraphs
already circled in Randy's book that I KNOW are MoQ orthodox, and while I
Only as an aside,Anthony, Ian, i think you made a little mistake, Anthony,
i believe, as i recall it, that it was in fact Orhan Pamuk
who spoke in a very inspirative way about ZMM, and the fact that it gave
him much nice insights.
and you presented this article on the Md,i do not remember if it
http://thebaffler.com/past/whats_the_point_if_we_cant_have_fun
[Ian]
What was the writer's point?
For MD the important point was the two types of explanations of how life might
emerge from dead matter or how conscious beings might evolve from
microbes...The first consists of what’s called
22 matches
Mail list logo
