[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

[John Carl]

For the record, Marsha, RMP is my favorite philosopher also.  Positing Royce
as a brother isn't a denigration of my fave, it's a positive addition.

Likewise, fairly debating dmb on the issue isn't a drag on my time...

It's a positive addition!

Gives me something to contemplate today as a I build chicken coops.


John

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:57 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>