[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[118]

Hi Andre,

I am indeed sorry if I hurt your feelings.  That was not my intention.
 I know I could not hurt James' feelings, unless you know something
that I do not.  I suppose the higher you put one on a pedestal, the
farther they fall.  In fact, I think he is even much more than you
claim he is.  Why be so modest about James?  Do you have something
against James and all his achievements?  You give him rather luke warm
reviews.

But, let's talk about tastefulness for a second, shall we?  I will
take your position:  Humanity has not progressed one bit since the
death of W. James.  It is only every so often that we are bestowed
with someone like that that who leads us from the darkness!  If not
for these Enlightened individuals, man would still be digging holes
for latrines.  Something refreshing only comes once in a long while,
and in between we must pay homage to those who pass.  There Andre, do
you find your position tasteful?  Personally I find it somewhat
insulting.

James was a product of his time, he did not operate in isolation.  If
anything should get credit it is the technology of the age, certainly
not W. James.  And, our technology has increased significantly which
allows us to postulate things that James would never have thought
about.  Sure Jame's was a prolific writer and speaker, but what about
the vast number of people who thought exactly as he did but did not
write about it?  No man can be seen in isolation.  Besides, James did
not pronounce anything new that had not already be said.  Give me
something that you think is novel, and I will give you a reference
where it was presented before

By the way, my little diatribe to dmb was supposed to be funny.  I
guess there are somethings that are too serious to laugh at.  Why so
serious Andre?  Do you have money placed on W. James?  Or, is your
reputation at risk?

Regards,
Mark the Heretic.

On 2/3/12, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark to dmb...(or is it William James?):
>
> James is a bit dated in his revelations, imo. He is stuck in that "good ol'
> psychology of the stone age.  A bit stuck in his thinking as it were. And
> who can blame him, he's dead.  Not much going on in that pretty little head
> of his right now, is there?  Seems pretty damn stuck to me!  We do not have
> to be stuck in a dead man's brain, unless we want to be.  I suppose it is
> pretty quite there, which may be
> comforting.  Not all the strife of new ideas going on which can threaten our
> security.  Not the W. James of old, he has been tamed.
>
> Andre:
> I am a bit disturbed by this type of macabre assessment of the insights one
> of the most important, brilliant and influential philosophers this (Western)
> world has produced.
>
> To suggest his ideas reflect a stuck-ness in psychology because he is dead (
> organically Mark... obviously not his intellectual contributions as perhaps
> it could be stated that 'modern' psychology has not taken heed of William
> James' insights) is not very tasteful.
>
> Perhaps you, Mark, can enlighten us on the progress psychology has made
> since William James. And I am not talking about new, fancy words and lovely
> new draping/syrup on old discoveries. I am talking about insights which have
> produced refreshingly new perspectives on those which, as you suggest,
> William James either neglected, was ignorant of or which have been regarded
> as absolutely stupid and/or'dated'.
>
>
>
> 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
>