[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

John Carl ridgecoyote at gmail.com
Wed Mar 10 12:47:38 PST 2010 

Marsha,

If you just read the intro and dedication I think it'd be pretty great.

Kegely rails against Kuklick's interpretation of Royce, but I liked him and
one of my favorite little pieces of sophistry is in his dedication where he
credits his wife with helping him get the  book done by her being gone.  The
way he frames it is priceless and you sorta have to work out what he's
saying logically to get it, which I guess might imply that he thought his
wife wouldn't realize this actual intent and just assume the book was being
dedicated to her.

She berated him for even choosing Royce as a subject.  Some women can't
stand him I guess.  Mrs. James, for one.

Oh well.

I hope you like him.  I think you have excellent "taste".


John

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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