I did present my own experience using Watts' quotes. Not to state that I spend 24-hours per day with an orgasmic grin on my face, I don't. But to know these experiences is to know enough, though I can "prove" nothing to you. If you do not believe Watts expressing his experience, why should I expect my words would be meaningful, for my expression would be paradoxical and incomplete.
William James was an interesting guy, but from my perspective, only from a historical point-of-view. If serving up radical empiricism on a bed of theoretical pages is what you crave and fetishizing a dead philosopher satisfies your need for ancestor-worship, by all means, stick to dmb's philosophologizing. If to read what Hildebrand, Granger, Stuhr, Hickman, Anderson, Richardson and 'Charlene' think about what James thought gets you high on life instead of experience, go for it.
You present speculation concerning brain chemistry, and I think you might be the Oxytocin Kid. I want to say you can gain great insight (that's wisdom) by watching (that's experiencing) and considering (that's intellectual contemplating) how your own mind works.
I believe RMP was pointing to the moon, and that is to be the moon.
I will not claim that anybody else is wrong, for I truly believe Quality is a process that evolves within the individual. Meditation is the way! Contemplation is the way! Kindness is the way! But you are correct; I am an illiterate bug.
> 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.
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:51 AM, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> 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.