[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Wed Mar 10 10:01:00 PST 2010 

John,

I look forward to a debate between you and Dave.  It will be interesting I'm sure.
I can image that comparing and contrasting Royce & James with the RMP
will be educating. 


Marsha


On Mar 10, 2010, at 12:36 PM, John Carl wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 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