[MD] Loneliness

[John Carl]

and just so you know, I think radical empiricism is a lousy foundation for
Quality.  Not enough concrete!

John the crazy idealist


On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Dave T ... thanks for the gumption and Chautauqua references from
> James ... I can believe it, and for me it just re-inforces the
> "foundations" of MoQ. Must follow those up.
>
> You said to Bo.
> "I hope I can open your eyes. Keep an open mind, ..."
>
> I wish you luck. I have several dead ends of unfinshed business with Bo.
>
> (At the risk of stating the obvious, Dave Buchanan - who has dropped
> of the forum for a break recently - has been pushing Jamesian "radical
> empiricism" very hard as a foundation for quality - I think he's
> right. For me the issue is whether MoQ is any good, solid and useful -
> not who invented it - ideas evolve.)
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM, David Thomas
> <combinedefforts at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On 9/9/09 2:03 AM, "Bodvar Skutvik" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> >
> >> I have read it all and find it most relevant. An gee Dave, if you could
> >> bring the discussion to the social level for a while because it is what
> >> sets the MOQ apart.
> >
> > With the biological/social divided firmed up a little the next step in my
> > mind would be trying to clear up the social just prior to intellectual.
> But
> > I have to warn you that when I read this in the "relativity" thread:
> >
> > (Bo earlier)
> >> Anyway this blunder resulted in the Quality/MOQ "meta-metaphysics"
> >> that overrides the MOQ and is a result from Pirsig's disastrous
> >> association with James whose view was Pre-conceptual/Conceptual.
> >
> > I scrambled for the subscribe button.
> >
> > I had been making what I think is my third pass though the 900 page tome
> > "The Writings of William James-A Comprehensive Edition- Edited by John J
> > McDermott and feeling philosophical decided to check the discuss archive
> to
> > review progress. Low and behold I hear you bashing both Pirsig and James
> for
> > screwing up the MoQ. Oh why? Oh why? I just couldn't let it lie.
> >
> > As you are aware I believe James' work is foundational to the MoQ and
> that
> > an understanding of this is instrumental to its long term success. You
> > disagree, not just with me, but also RMP on this. I hope I can open your
> > eyes. Keep an open mind, I will try to be gentle.
> >
> > But as you know graphics is my first language, English my second. So I
> write
> > slowly and think even slower. So it may take a while.
> >
> > As a tease: Are you aware the James discusses in, (What make a Life
> > Significant) a trip to speak at the original Chautauqua as a vehicle to
> > discuss what was lacking in life? Or that in another lecture he
> discusses,
> > gumption?  Surely you would have to admit that the term "gumption" in not
> > one that commonly comes up in philosophical discussions. Mere
> coincidence?
> > Maybe.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> 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/
>