[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Wed Mar 10 10:08:36 PST 2010 

p.s.  I'm about to start the Kuklick book.  I read the biography of James and am looking forward to this book, especially as it is an intellectual biography.  But I've just started it and don't think I'll have a lot of time for reading because I have two paintings started.  



On Mar 10, 2010, at 1:01 PM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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