[MD] CA 2 - an aside

[John Carl]

Marsha,

"selling" marsha?  I guess I'm selling words.  Words are my money and I take
payment in kind.


On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> Hey John,
>
> What exactly are you selling here?  Theism?  Religion?
> Absolute Idealism?


 Theism is a choice for me, but I see it as a good choice for me, and not
for everybody, so I don't push it.

 Religion, I shun and detest in all it's forms, eastern, western and
plutonian.  If they'd make a religion for introverted anarchistic
iconoclasts, sure, I might be tempted.  But you and I know that ain't never
gonna happen.

Absolute Idealism, I do endorse and promote.  I see it as embracing and
contextualizing the MoQ, that is, the MoQ as a species of Absolute Idealism;
and it's my goal in these Annotation annotations, to demonstrate and prove
just that.  Explicitly.

But ultimately, my goal is the same as yours, the promotion and endorsement
and evolution of the MoQ - started by RMP and continued those "who get it".



> I don't get the fancy dance'n accusation?
> Why would such tactics be required?
>
>
> Marsha, the naive.
>
>

As to why such tactics be required,   tactics are required when you're
trying to get a metaphysical system accepted, you tap dance your way through
the swinging front doors, so you don't get shot right off the bat.

 I'm just guessing, of course.  ask HIM.

John the guesser




>
> > "Personal" sounds subjective, to me, and thus on the wrong end of the
> horny
> > bull.  So I'm gonna focus on the Absolute kinds of Idealism, as that's
> the
> > main point of my thesis of the MoQ as a species of Absolute Idealism.
> >
> > And the ongoing topic at hand as well, since we end with Bradley and
> Royce
> > and their individual stances of Absolute Idealism.
>
>