Copleston text:
In point of fact, however, 'judgment is not the synthesis of ideas, but the
reference of ideal content to reality'. And it is Bradley's contention that the
latent and ultimate subject of any judgment is reality as a whole, reality, we
may say, with a capital letter. 'Not only
On the subject of:
Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since
it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic
one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to control
and devour philosophy is wrong with
On May 23, 2013, at 6:48 AM, David Harding davidjhard...@gmail.com wrote:
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
Subject: Re: [MD] theories of truth
Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since
it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic
one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to control
and devour philosophy is
djh wrote:
And so I conclude - Marsha is a mystic and has no interest in intellectual
quality or questions about whether something exists before we think about it.
Marsha responded with a Copleston annotation:
In point of fact, however, 'judgment is not the synthesis of ideas, but the
David,
On May 23, 2013, at 6:48 AM, David Harding davidjhard...@gmail.com wrote:
David Harding:
And so I conclude - Marsha is a mystic and has no interest in intellectual
quality or questions about whether something exists before we think about it.
Marsha:
So, David, EITHER I discuss with you
Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since
it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic
one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to control
and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it
Marsha,
It is precisely *because* you're such a mystic that the intellectual question
makes no sense to you. It's like asking a Victorian whose only interested in
social values what the biological value of the human body is. They didn't have
the slightest idea. They wouldn't understand the
David,
Dmb seems to like to label me a James hater; he is like a baby. I read
James' biography and thought it quite interesting because he tried to
synthesize the Eastern wisdom into a Western psychology/philosophy. But I
prefer the Eastern point-of-view - always have. And neither am I
Hi MarshaV and All,
Experience is too vague to support evolution DQ/SQ. Both DQ and SQ are
meaningful metaphysical terms dynamic quality indefinable and static quality
definable.
Joe
On 5/23/13 1:21 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Joe,
Don't you think that Quality as experience
dmb said to David Harding:
WHY is it immoral to create a metaphysics? Because it is a case of intellect,
a lower form of evolution, ..trying to devour a higher mystic one. This is
another way of saying that Quality cannot be defined, that we ought not try to
squeeze reality into words and
Amoral objectivity (value-free science) is the problem. The solution is to
ditch this genetically flawed conception of rationality for an expanded
rationality in which knowledge and truth IS a species of value. And yet the
anti-intellectualists would like us to believe that intellectual values
Ron commented on this dispute:
... One then has to ask Marsha and Dave H. if they side with the christians
in this matter in which we are all born with the original sin of knowing
good. At least that is what they seem to be saying when they use that quote
out of context as support to the
dmb said to Ron:
...But what really kills me is the oblivious evasion of every argument. David H
did not even address the objection but simply repeated the same mistake more
emphatically. I said it was asinine and explained why it makes to sense and yet
it was as if I said nothing at all. And
dmb,
On May 24, 2013, at 4:21 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Concerning the RMP quote (printed below) dmb writes:
Is this a case of intellect, a lower form of evolution, ..trying to devour a
higher mystic one? Are we supposed to slam the breaks on scientific progress
John and Sylvia, the Sutherlands, were real people but in Pirsig's first book
they also represented millions of people who, like them, felt alienated by
technology and our technological world. We start out with ghost stories and
little repair lessons involving handlebars and beer-can shims. But
dmb said:
Are we having a conversation or are you just going to repeat the same
nonsense over and over again? Address the damn argument or shut up.. the
definition of a philosophical concept or term is not degenerate because
philosophical concepts and terms are not the mystic reality. The
17 matches
Mail list logo
