Happy New Year, Krimel --
> Ham, > > I found that post-it Hume left for you a while back. Here is one from > James. > I don't know why I am getting your mail. I've forgotten the point of our discussion, but based on the quote you forwarded (below), I sense that it has to do with my concept of an absolute source. William James wrote in a time when religion was dominant in man's thoughts, and he wanted to make philosophy as pragmatic (i.e., empirically-based) as science. Needless to say, he is not one of my favorite philosophers. About all he can say against belief in the absolute is that "practically, it is less beautiful [than rational], for in representing the deepest reality of the world as static and without a history, it loosens the world's hold upon our sympathies and leaves the soul of it foreign.it." He adds: "it is hard to portray the absolute at all without rising into what might be called the 'inspired' style of language - I use the word not ironically, but prosaically and descriptively, to designate the only literary form that goes with the kind of emotion that the absolute arouses." Well, if "inspired style" is objectionable for a hypothesis, such a criticism could be leveled against Pirsig's MOQ which posits no absolute source. The metaphysical concept of an absolute is not 'absolutism', and James' use of this derogative term in the last sentence is deceptive. Also, his characterization of absolute reality as "static and without a history" shows that he does not consider time and space the modality of finite experience, thus assumes that, as an absolute, physical reality would be frozen in space/time. There is no evidence to indicate that the Buddhists who conceive all things as One have lost their "sympathies" with mankind or that they feel themselves "foreign" to the world of beingness. The same is true of Essentialists. Indeed, the continuous "striving" and struggle for morality (value) is what we all experience as human beings. It is the raison d'être of our finite, differentiated existence. Rationality and intellection are what finite beings use to process relational knowledge, and it is this process that gives rise to a world of discrete objects and events. Since man's rationality cannot be applied to a non-relational source, James criticizes the concept as irrational. This is the view of a psychologist, not a philosopher. Without a metaphysical foundation, experiential reality is not only non-rational but meaningless. Most people seem content to accept reality at face value. The philosopher is not, because empirical knowledge is dependent on organic perception which is validated by consensus. Absolute reality is not subject to such limitations. The fact that it cannot be proved empirically or logically doesn't refute the concept. Thanks for the quotation, Krimel. I missed it too. Regards, Ham > "Probably the weightiest contribution to our feeling of the rationality of > the universe which the notion of the absolute brings is the assurance that > however disturbed the surface may be, at bottom all is well with the > cosmos-central peace abiding at the heart of endless agitation. This > conception is rational in many ways, beautiful aesthetically, beautiful > intellectually (could we only follow it into detail), and beautiful > morally, > if the enjoyment of security can be accounted moral. Practically it is > less > beautiful; for, as we saw in our last lecture, in representing the deepest > reality of the world as static and without a history, it loosens the > world's > hold upon our sympathies and leaves the soul of it foreign. Nevertheless > it > does give peace, and that kind of rationality is so paramountly demanded > by > men that to the end of time there will be absolutists, men who choose > belief > in a static eternal, rather than admit that the finite world of change and > striving, even with a God as one of the strivers, is itself eternal. ... > But > it is hard to portray the absolute at all without rising into what might > be > called the 'inspired' style of language-I use the word not ironically, but > prosaically and descriptively, to designate the only literary form that > goes > with the kind of emotion that the absolute arouses. One can follow the > pathway of reasoning soberly enough, but the picture itself has to be > effulgent. This admirable faculty of transcending, whilst inwardly > preserving, every contrariety, is the absolute's characteristic form of > rationality. We are but syllables in the mouth of the Lord; if the whole > sentence is divine, each syllable is absolutely what it should be, in > spite > of all appearances. In making up the balance for or against absolutism, > this > emotional value weights heavily the credit side of the account." > - William James "A Pluralistic Universe" 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
