[MD] to dmb

[MarshaV]

HI Mark,

Am I sounding like a religious zealot? 


Marsha 


On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:02 PM, 118 wrote:

> 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.
>> 
> 



 
___