Struan, Platt, Rog, and all:
I'll admit that I know alot less about William James than than some of
the heavy hitters here but I have read a little by him and about him. And
from what I know of James, I think Struan is right on this point. James was
a psychologist. His theories apply to "explain" the concept of mind (from
various perspectives). My question for this post is--- so what?
You're not REALLY arguing about James, are you? You're arguing about
the MoQ. James' ideas are a fine precursor to understanding the MoQ, but
they aren't the MoQ. The MoQ GOES FURTHER than James (and most others); it
extends some of James' concepts to the very well established and respected
concept of the philosophical Monism, and that was what is ultimately at
issue here, right? The MoQ (and apparently Bertrand Russell, all those
intellectual mysitcs whose books fill the shelves of "any decent university
library", as well thousands of years worth of Zen writers, etc.) postulates
that James was dead wrong when he said "THERE APPEARS NO UNIVERSAL ELEMENT
OF WHICH ALL THINGS ARE MADE!!!! (as paraphrased by Struan)"
(Quality fans take careful note)--- The MoQ identifies the "MY PURE
EXPERIENCE" that Struan tells us James is interested in as temporary Static
"incarnations" of a Dynamic Monism. Thus the "ME" in "MY PURE EXPERIENCE"
is really just more of "THE EXPERIENCE". James was on to something, but
ultimately trapped in the SOM.
All Good,
Rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:41 BST