[Ham 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.
[Krimel] Needless to say. [Ham] 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." [Krimel] James says far more than this about the nonsense of absolutism but that was al that fit in his post-it. He calls it an inspired style I would call it hucksterism or the hawking of wishful thinking. [Ham] 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. [Krimel] If you want a fuller picture of James I would recommend A Pluralistic Universe. At this point I would not say you have a handle on his views about space-time. My reading of your take on this is that you are seriously misguided and out of touch with current thinking on these matters. James is too but he lived 100 years ago and his thinking is surprisingly prophetic in many respects. [Ham] 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. [Krimel] I believe it has been said of James that he writes philosophy like a psychologist and psychology like a philosopher. I suspect that is why I do like him. I think one of my biggest problems with you is your insistence on using obscure terms that you seem to just make up to substitute for perfectly good terms that would clarify your position. You seem to think terms like sensibility, relational value, non relational source... offer some added precision but frankly they just sound pretentious. [Ham] 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. [Krimel] What basis is there speculation on that which can not be sensed or perceived? The fact that it cannot be proved empirically or logically simply makes it irrelevant. Is there anything beyond a warm fuzzy sense of security that you get out of this? 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/
