[MD] to dmb

[118]

Hi Marsha,

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:32 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
 There is a relationship between the MoQ and Buddhism, and I do not
think my pursuing it poses any threat to the MoQ.  As RMP has clearly
stated, the MoQ is not confined within any one philosophic tradition.
The last paragraph in your post seems to be unreasonable and
exaggerated name-calling because I will not follow your lead.  Please
do not take it personally.  It may be that there is a good
relationship between Contemporary Pragmatism/Radical Empiricism and
the MoQ, and between Buddhist philosophy and the MoQ, with something
to be gained from both approaches.
>
[Mark]
In the first book about Quality, Buddhism was in the title.  You have
every reason to consider Buddhism in terms of MOQ, that was the intent
of the first book.  I did not realize there was any dispute about
whether Buddhism was related.  Who would even suggest such a thing?

There are some who place quotes down instead of explanations.  However
quotes must be viewed in the context of the entire book, and do not
stand on their own.  It is quite possible that the context provides
the exact opposite of what is attempted to be supported.  I can find a
sentence in ZMM to support any contention I want.  This does not
provide any support whatsoever, it is bordering on Dogmatic.  Throwing
bibles is not a philosophical approach, it is a religious one.  If it
wasn't for philosophy, I am sure a lot of those posting would be
staunch religious Zealots.  You can find any quote you want in the
bible also.  Does this mean that the approach is right?  Just because
Moses said something does not prove anything.  I don't know why some
just march in step, it is somewhat disappointing.
>

>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>