[MD] First Division 2.0

[MarshaV]

Here is a RMP quote, written in October 2005, for you to consider when you think about William James:  

I'll post again RMP's statement:
 
"The Metaphysics of Quality is not intended to be within any philosophic tradition, although obviously it was not written in a vacuum. My first awareness that it resembled James' work came from a magazine review long after “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” was published. The Metaphysics of Quality's central idea that the world is nothing but value is not part of any philosophic tradition that I know of. I have proposed it because it seems to me that when you look into it carefully it makes more sense than all the other things the world is supposed to be composed of. One particular strength lies in its applicability to quantum physics, where substance has been dismissed but nothing except arcane mathematical formulae has really replaced it." 

       (A brief summary of the Metaphysics of Quality, October 2005)
 




On Feb 25, 2012, at 3:36 PM, 118 wrote:

> Dear Marsha,
> I wish you would not disguise your own incoherent logic as a quote
> from Watts.  I can logically deduce that you have never read Watt, nor
> perhaps do you ever plan to.  Perhaps you have a cheat sheet next to
> your computer containing the titles of books he has written; I have no
> way of knowing how devious you are.
> 
> I think it would be suitable if you did not present your own
> meanderings as somebody else's, this just makes you look ridiculous
> and somewhat criminal.  It clear that from your own misguided
> representation of MoQ, that you have not read much at all.  In fact, I
> tend to believe that your attribution, of your own writings, to
> somebody else is probably the rule.  Just leave it as your own logic,
> so that you do not undermine somebody who is now dead and cannot
> defend himself; this is quite troubling to me.
> 
> If somehow you can present how your quote that you came up with
> represents the metaphysics of Watts, then perhaps I can see some
> function in it.  But, I know that you will never be able to do this
> since you have never read or listened to Watts.  Your denial to show
> such a presentation will simply demonstrate how my logic appropriately
> results in the conclusion of your illiteracy.
> 
> For, I can tell that dmb has read quite a lot of James, much more than
> I ever will, because he then explains such things and their relevance
> to MoQ.  But you?  Well that is another story.  If you care for any of
> the authors that you say you represent, then please stop pretending
> that your own little writings are theirs.  I believe you have that
> respect, although I may be misjudging you on this.  We'll see.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark
> 
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:51 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> "Of course, to say that life is just a gesture, an action without agent, recipient, or purpose, sounds much more empty and futile than joyous. But to me it seems that an ego, a substantial entity to which experience happens, is more of a minus than a plus.  It is an estrangement from experience, a lack of participation."
>> 
>>   (Watts, Alan, 'The Joyous Cosmology')
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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


 
___