[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[118]

Hi dmb,

If James were alive still today, we would be speaking of philosphical
presentations which he did not come up with during his lifetime.  He
would probably be questioning you on your interpretation of what he
presented 100 years ago and wonder why you have not kept up with the
times.  If James were 150 years ahead of his time, he would also be
150 years ahead of now, if he were still alive.  So rather than wallow
in what is only 50 years ahead of now, why not go for the 150 as James
would have done?  You are trying to catch up with something that
hasn't changed since he died, and is completely outdated in terms of
its psychological pretentions.  This is not the way James would have
done it, all his theories would be completely different now, in ways
you cannot even imagine.  So why go back when you can go forward?  Use
your imagination.

Thanks for the clip, by the way.  However, I would not place MoQ in
the hands of a dead philosopher.  It just doesn't seem right to me.
It makes me feel... well... kind of unclean or kinky.  Here we hanging
out a dead man's jewels, and just displaying them for everyone to see,
without any moral qualms.  James cannot even defend himself!  It is
like beating a dead horse.  Can't you see all those flies buzzing
around?  Doesn't the smell get to you?  I can't imagine the stench in
50 more years!  There are plenty of live philosophers available, so
let the dead ones rest in peace.  No matter how much you pretend with
props and hidden speakers and puppet strings, he is not talking to
you, stop taking him out of the closet, it is a health hazard, and
getting pretty grrrrizzzzly!


In good fun of course,
RIP,
Mark

On 2/2/12, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark said:
> According to Sartre, there are three forms of consciousness. ...  I bring in
> Sartre just as an example, not because I necessarily agree with him (which I
> do not).   ...James is a bit dated in his revelations, imo.  He is stuck in
> that "good ol' psychology of the stone age. ...
>
>
> dmb says:
> Sartre is hardly relevant while this description of James's thinking is a
> good detailed explanation of the difference between DQ and sq. It's hard to
> imagine what could be more relevant to a proper understanding the MOQ.
> And no, I don't think James is particularly dated. If scholars like Eugene
> Taylor are right, James was about 150 years ahead of his time and we've
> still got some ways to go before we catch up with him.
>
>
> May I suggest a more careful look at a smaller piece of that little Wiki
> article? I'll add MOQ terms in brackets...
>
> "...Everyone assumes that we have direct introspective acquaintance with our
> thinking activity as such," James said, "with our consciousness as something
> inward and contrasted with the outer objects which it knows. [SOM] Yet I
> must confess that for my part I cannot feel sure of this conclusion.
> Whenever I try to become sensible of thinking activity as such, what I catch
> is come bodily fact, an impression coming from my brow, or head, or throat,
> or nose. It seems as if consciousness as an inner activity [subjective self]
> were rather a postulate [concept] than a sensibly given fact, the postulate,
> namely, of a knower [subject] as correlative to all this known [objects];
> and as if "sciousness" might be a better word by which to describe it.  ...
> Then thirteen years later, writing solely as a philosopher, James returned
> to his "parenthetical digression" of sciousness that "contradict[ed] the
> fundamental assumption [SOM] of every philosophic school." James had founded
> a new school
>   of philosophy, called "radical empiricism," and nondual sciousness [DQ]
> was its starting-point. He even wrote a note to himself to "apologize for my
> dualistic language, in the Principles."[5] James did not continue to use the
> word "sciousness" in later essays on radical empiricism, but the concept is
> clearly there as the "plain, unqualified ... existence" he comes to call
> "pure experience," [DQ] in which there is "no self-splitting ... into
> consciousness [subject] and what the consciousness is of" [objects]. Pure
> experience sciousness [DQ] was mostly attacked when first presented.[7] With
> some notable exceptions, such as Bergson, Dewey, and Whitehead, Western
> philosophers rejected James' view. That rejection continues to this day.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  		 	   		
> 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
>