[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Wed Mar 10 03:57:11 PST 2010 

Hi John, 

Dmb may have a James-I-tus virus, constantly pissing random acts
of Jamesness.  I don't hear him explaining how RMP has made James' 
philosophies better.  Oh no, just endless, boring quotes from his latest 
book-learning, as if it justifies something.  Maybe it does within the few
classes he's taken.  Other than from a historical perspective, I don't give 
a bunny's butt about William James.   But then dmb has all that intellectual 
competency, I shouldn't disagree with him.     

For the record, RMP, not WJ or dmb, is my favorite philosopher.   


Marsha
 


On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:33 PM, John Carl wrote:

> Sorry marsha, I wasn't talking about your panties, it was a snide aside
> aimed at dmb.
> 
> Willam Jame's Varieties is more his baliwick, after all.
> 
> I've actually never had Jalapeno Ice Cream, but I have heard it's good.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> My panties in a bunch?  I don't think so.  I just posted what I thought to
>> be
>> the MoQ's point-of-view on theism, and what I perceived to be a problem
>> arguing theism as the same as religion.  I'm all in favor of a variety of
>> religious experiences, but non attributed to any type of other supernatural
>> being/s.
>> 
>> Mixed with some cocoa beans, I bet hot, spicy Jalapeno peppers in
>> ice cream would be wonderful.  I'd try it.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:50 PM, John Carl wrote:
>> 
>>> I hear ya, Marsha.  Jalapeno Ice Cream isn't your taste but you won't
>> knock
>>> the spoon outta somebody else's mouth.
>>> 
>>> Fair enough.
>>> 
>>> I'm only slightly curious why a system which extolls "Varieties" of
>>> Religious Experience would get its panties all in a twist in the first
>>> place, but hey.  That's just me and my Jalapeno flavored world view.
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:18 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> JC,
>>>> 
>>>> I disagree with you, but I'm not trying to change your mind.  I think
>> the
>>>> concept
>>>> chocked full of harmful vibes, but by all means go for it.  Let the show
>>>> begin.
>>>> I'll wander through the stadium getting rich selling moon pie.
>>>> 
>>>> Love you,
>>>>   Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 9, 2010, at 11:49 AM, John Carl wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And I think the use of the term "god" much more degrading because of
>> the
>>>>>> commonly acknowledged definitions, connotations and history.  I think
>>>> RMP
>>>>>> chose the most appropriate label.  Stripping the word "god" of all the
>>>>>> garbage
>>>>>> would be near impossible, imho.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> I dunno Marsha.  It has been tried before.  There seems to me to be a
>>>>> central problem in human history that when you throw out "God", you
>> throw
>>>>> out values.  That's the way it's been.  The Russian experiment
>> (remember
>>>> the
>>>>> "godless commies?") didn't work out so well and historically, the use
>> of
>>>> the
>>>>> term has served the evolution of society so that evidently those
>>>> societies
>>>>> that use the term do better than the societies that don't.  I feel
>> rather
>>>>> than tossing it out, the MoQ should analyze.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That's not the same thing as true atheism.  Which is more along the
>>>> lines
>>>>>>> Krimel advocated with the world and all that is being the product of
>>>>>> random
>>>>>>> chance, with no positive force behind any of it.  No matter what you
>>>> call
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Here's the definition of atheism I use:  Atheists are people who
>> believe
>>>>>> that god
>>>>>> or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths
>>>> and
>>>>>> legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.  If
>>>> Krimel
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> a more esoteric, sophisticated definition that's fine but it would
>> seem
>>>> to
>>>>>> narrow
>>>>>> the discussion to only those individuals who share his definition.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok Marsha.  Let's look at this carefully.  "man-made constructs" - what
>>>>> isn't?  Even to use the term implies a supernatural entity, otherwise
>>>> "man"
>>>>> - made is meaningless.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unless you meant gender-wise and you prefer "woman-made constructs".
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's like gav pointed out about "Freedom" is also a man-made construct,
>>>> but
>>>>> in the MoQ, even subjective patterns have meaning AS patterns of value.
>>>>> Since people have gone to war repeatedly over such intellectual
>>>> constructs,
>>>>> I fail to see how defining them as "meaningless" is helpful in
>> analyzing
>>>>> them properly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree that one does not need faith to perceive Quality, whereas it
>>>> does
>>>>>>> take a sort of faith to perceive God.  Just one more way that Quality
>>>> and
>>>>>>> God are differing concepts.  I guess the purest way I can make the
>>>>>>> distinction is that you can ask if God is any good, but you can't
>>>> really
>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>> if Quality is any good.  God is measured by Quality, not the other
>> way
>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Does that make sense?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perfect sense.  So what is benefit of holding on to the concept of
>> God?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Communication with 95% of US Population, for one.  Discourse with most
>> of
>>>>> written history, for another.  Those two alone hold enough benefit to
>>>> tempt
>>>>> me to go all, "duh!" on you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But I won't because I'm too respectful.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Quality doesn't obviate God.  Quality tames "God".  The comparison with
>>>> SOM
>>>>> is exactly apt  - Quality doesn't obviate S/O.  Quality tames S/O.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> John the lion-tamer,
>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 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


 
___

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list