[MD] (Fwd) Re: John Carl Critiques Pure Experience:INST01

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Marsha,
Apart from that feeling of "why do people always comment on the
subsidiary / asides and not the main point ?" :-) that is a good
question.

But I would say that is a non-MoQ issue ... in the sense that it -
moving society forward - is about living and doing ... rather than
trying to sell everyone a shiny (not quite) new metaphysics - however
good it is. Very few people hold an explicit metaphysics that they
live by ?

Regards
Ian

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:08 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] (Fwd) Re: John Carl Critiques Pure Experience:INST01
>
> Ian to Bo:
> Non-acceptance by some of MoQ-non-issues ... that the "circularity" in
> finger and moon arguments about where "intellect" lies in the MoQ, yet
> contains the MoQ Metaphysics as an intellectual pattern is perfectly
> reasonable position ...
>
>
> Marsha:
> Reasonable position, okay, but is it the best way to move forward a society
> not prepared for paradox.
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>