On the distortion of reification, Alan Wallace writes:
In Buddhist mental training, great emphasis is placed from the outset on
distinguishing between the fantasizing mind and verifying cognition. Indeed
the tendency of the human mind to assume the existence of things that are in
fact
On Jun 1, 2011, at 2:37 PM, david buchanan wrote:
But I seriously doubt that you have any idea what James, Wallace or I am even
talking about here.
dmb,
James, Wallace and yourself? Hahahahahaha! I am scorned for not being a
Buddhist, and here you are grouping yourself with
What relevance does the term scientific realism have for those of us who
are not professional philosophers of science? Check for yourself what sort of
perspective you have on scientific assertions, regardless of your philosophy.
As you look at this page, you see a sheet of white paper
My view? Not this, not that... Unless, of course, you are speaking
statically/conventionally.
On Jun 2, 2011, at 5:09 AM, MarshaV wrote:
What relevance does the term scientific realism have for those of us who
are not professional philosophers of science? Check for
Andre said:
Enjoy your posts dmb. They are excellent, as usual.
dmb says:
Thanks and right back at you.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
dmb said to Marsha:
...But I seriously doubt that you have any idea what James, Wallace or I am
even talking about here.
Marsha replied:
James, Wallace and yourself? Hahahahahaha! ... here you are grouping yourself
with James and Wallace. On what basis do you speak as a representative of
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:08 AM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb said to Marsha:
...But I seriously doubt that you have any idea what James, Wallace or I am
even talking about here.
Marsha replied:
James, Wallace and yourself? Hahahahahaha! ... here you are grouping
yourself with James and
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:08 AM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb says:
I'm saying you don't understand the quote you posted, which was from Wallace
and about James.
Marsha:
Yet concerning the quote I posted YOU wrote: I'm pretty sure Wallace is wrong
on that point. You're
pretty sure Wallace is
dmb,
I bet I can locate the post from last July where you explained for
me how patterns and objects differ. Maybe we can evaluate
that post against every intellectual standard? That might be
fun... How do you imagine it will hold up?
marsha
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:42 AM, MarshaV
dmb said:
... Ham's Essentialism seems to be a matter of moving a few pieces around on
some metaphysical chessboard and none of those pieces makes contact with actual
experience at any point. The game is confined to those 64 squares and none of
the moves makes a difference to anyone or
Marsha said to dmb:
You obviously have no idea of my understanding of reification. - The quotes I
present match my view perfectly.
Here is the quote that presents Marsha's view perfectly:
One of the chief causes of bondage is, not so much the faculty of
conceptualization, but rather the
dmb,
I asked you the other day to post what you thought was my understanding of
'reification.' Of course you didn't. So I'll ask you again, please explain
my understanding of 'reification.'' Explain my understanding in its entirety.
--- Recently I wrote: Reification represents how the
Marsha asked dmb:
...I don't understand what you are talking about. ...On what basis do you
believe you and James and Wallace are all in sync? Your opinion based on
every intellectual standard???You and James and Wallace... OMG!
dmb says:
Why is so hard to believe that I understand
Marsha said:
I asked you the other day to post what you thought was my understanding of
'reification.' Of course you didn't. So I'll ask you again, please explain
my understanding of 'reification.'' Explain my understanding in its entirety.
dmb says:
I just dished up your thoughts on
dmb,
For my definition, ou'll have to supply my exact quotes and their context. You
too often exaggerate and misrepresent what I say.
On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:24 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha said:
I asked you the other day to post what you thought was my understanding of
On 6/1/11 9:33 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
For one thing, we don't directly experience Quality independent of
intellectual abstractions. Quality is an assessment of the aesthetic or
moral value of a phenomenon relative to other phenomena experienced or
observed. That
2 jun 2011 kl. 18.22 Marsha wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:08 AM, david buchanan wrote:
dmb says:
I'm saying you don't understand the quote you posted, which was from Wallace
and about James.
Marsha:
Yet concerning the quote I posted YOU wrote: I'm pretty sure Wallace is
wrong on
Hi Ham, Ron,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
[Ham]:
My conclusion: Essence is negational.
[Ron]:
How about limit, for any experience to have any meaning,
it's much easier to explain and it works logically but your
explanation above is, well,
Hi Ham,
I would agree with you. Radical empiricism is anything but
metaphysics. In fact it is the antithesis of metaphysics. This is
why it is termed radical, not because it is a new kind of empiricism,
but because it is empiricism taken to its maximum definition. So,
when Ron or dmb speak of
19 matches
Mail list logo
