[MD] The Physics of Metaphysics

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,


On Apr 15, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Ham Priday wrote:

>> 
>> James was very influenced by reading Eastern texts, and rather than
>> reading James's interpretation of a poor translation, I think I'll stick to
>> reading Buddhist's texts directly.  Today there are wonderful, in-depth,
>> scholarly translations of very old Pali texts, and it is not a dead philosophy
>> so there are knowledgeable scholars and practitioners to answer questions.
>> RMP has spoken as much about Buddhism as about the American
>> Pragmatists.  He has identified himself as a Buddhist.
> 
> I'll accept that profile, despite the fact that the MOQ has been promoted by several in this forum as an example of "radical empiricism", with William James and other pragmatists cited as the founders of this philosophical approach.  (I'm surprised that you haven't been involved in those discussions.)

You shouldn't be surprised; I'm a "stupid" relativist who thinks Protagoras had it right all along, and I prefer the Buddha's Emptiness (Quality) and conventional/relative truth (static quality) to anything I've heard about William James.  Buddhism is also pragmatic and based on empiricism.  I haven't found the WJ discussions to ever get off the ground. j  Even Horse and Arlo, who seems to think they need to defend dmb, have not participated in any WJ discussion.  But let me ask you:  Why haven't you participated in any discussion concerning the WJ, pragmatism and/or radical empiricism?    
 
Thank you for the discussion.  On some level I often find your comments agreeable.  And you actually do a great job of defending the MoQ.  Your unique language gets me confused, but also the fact that I cannot find an autonomous self or independent objects and therefore reject them.  I find 'First' or 'Primary' unnecessary adjectives, but we will continue this another day I'm sure.  

Thanks Ham,



Marsha
 
 
 
 
 
___