[MD] Keep on duckin'

[MarshaV]

On May 28, 2011, at 11:38 AM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> dmb says:
> Yea, go ahead a post your "evidence" again. And I will show you once again that the quotes do NOT support the "expanded Buddhist understanding".

Marsha:
I'm waiting...  




> dmb says:
> Last time, your own evidence said concepts MAY be reified. Common sense, conventional thinking is not philosophical.

Marsha:
Really?  And is it improper for a philosophical list to discuss conventional thinking?  Or will we hear quotes from James until we fall asleep?



> dmb says:
> It's practical and the average guy does not doubt the existence of the traffic light.

Marsha:
Oh my, your discourse is so stimulating.  

> dmb says:
> That kind of common sense realism or natural essentialism is NOT a problem.

Marsha:
Is that a "Says dmb" or a "Says James" or what?  


> dmb says:
> Realistic conceptualizations work quite unproblematically on the conventional level.

Marsha:
You found this out when you wrote you Ph.D. dissertation?


> dmb says:
> Reification becomes a problem when conventional notions are asked to do philosophical work, when ordinary thoughts and things become metaphysical or ontological categories.

Marsha:
Please offer your source or justification for this conclusion...


> dmb says:
> Pirsig's attack on Plato's fixed and eternal forms and his attack on Aristotle's substance are proper attacks on reification, for example. The way he and James both insist that subjects and objects are concepts rather than the starting points of reality, for example, is an attack on reification. 

Marsha:
Zzzz.  A is for apple.  B is for boy.  C is for cat...


> dmb says:
> Your incoherent attack on reification is just a foolish.

Marsha:
I have never attacked 'reification.'  If you think I have, please provide evidence.  


> dmb syas:
> You're oblivious to the problem where it actually exists and instead use the term to condemn any and all concepts.

Marsha:
This is just your rather clueless opinion.   


> dmb says:
> Like I said, if you were able to comprehend the meaning of the term you'd reject Bo's position in a very big way.

Marsha:
"Like I said,"  That's a joke.  Do you think I have an interest in what you say?   I do not think you understand Bo's position, and you certainly do not understand mine.  It's must be you urge for the soapbox again.


> dmb says:
> He has reified the MOQ and yet you follow him even while you blather on incoherently about reification.

Marsha:
Yes, I do the discussion of the MoQ reifies it.  It is a theory, an intellectual static pattern of value.   


> dmb says:
> You know, the cool thing about Buddhism is that it is more like psychology than religion. William James thought one particular Buddhist guest speaker at Harvard was a better psychologist than himself, and told him so after the talk. There are Buddhist scholars who say that the Buddha was a pragmatist and a radical empiricist and who say James's work is compatible with Japanese Zen Buddhism. My point? Zen and the Art doesn't need any Buddhist expansion or correction, least of all from non-Buddhist, non-scholar like you, because it's already there.

Marsha:
I have as much right as you to discuss any philosophical topic.  If you have more right, please explain why?  


> dmb says:
> Again, I'll remind you that you repeatedly cited an enthusiastic William James fan to dispute William James. The quotes you post as evidence for your notion of reification do not support that notion at all. 

Marsha:
This statement doesn't make sense.  If you mean to say that Alan Wallace respects Williams James, so what?  


> dmb says:
> What I don't get is WHY you need to believe that the intellect cannot escape SOM or reification.

Marsha:
Because it removes concepts from their context and interdependencies.   Obviously you haven't read my posting's on the 'reification.'  



> dmb syas:
> It's pretty clear that you have some kind of deep emotional commitment to the belief that intellect is something to killed rather than cultivated.

Marsha:
Have you RMP's words in Chapter 32:

	While sustaining biological and social patterns
	Kill all intellectual patterns.
	Kill them completely
	And then follow Dynamic Quality
	And morality will be served.


> dmb says:
> But why do you NEED to believe that?

Marsha:
I do not NEED to believe this. 


> dmb says:
> Is like a sour grapes thing?

Marsha:
Why don't you ask RMP why he had the need to write it?  


> dmb says:
> You're tired of being told that you have the wrong idea and that your laboring under a misconception and so rather than do the work it takes to think things through you simply decided that ideas and conceptions themselves are inherently bad. You've adopted a virulent form of anti-intellectualism in order to protect your self-esteem, to get off the hook and otherwise evade the issues. That's why nobody can ever have anything like a real conversation with you. 

Marsha:
This is nonsense.  It's not very intellectual.  It's simply dressing up name-calling.  Problem may be that you do not know the difference.   


> dmb says:
> If I present the evidence, you say it doesn't explain anything or dismiss it as authoritarian rather than authoritative. (Man, is that dumb!)

Marsha:
You evidence is usually just your opinion and some insults thrown in to distract from the incompleteness of your thinking.   


> dmb says:
> If I explain, you ask for evidence. If I use logic, you don't see the point.

Marsha:
You are still dreaming of presenting a logical argument.  You do not seem to know the difference between presenting a logical thesis and your opinion.  


> dmb says:
> Considering the context, that behavior is wildly inappropriate.

Marsha:
What context would that be?  From your posts, I cannot consider you an authority.  


> dmb says:
> Words and ideas are our common currency, the medium of exchange, not the root of all evil. You're betting that cash is no good and yet cash is all you have to bet. It's simply incoherent. 

Marsha:
And this kind of writing is suppose to pass for intellectual discourse?  You've got to be kidding!!!   

> dmb says:
> Nobody thinks you're going to be persuaded by this or any other argument.  

Marsha:
There was no argument presented.  


> dmb says:
> I'm not really talking to you because there is no talking to you.   Ask anyone who's ever tried.

Marsha:
Awww.  Aren't you getting enough attention that you need to lower yourself to this level?   
 
___