Hey John --
Thanks for the mention and all, but I have to say you and I
are philosophically speaking, miles apart.
I started out in my youth in a philosopophy that was very,
very anti-anthropocentric. It made sense then and it makes
sense now that if you make your reality subjective, you
haven't got a you to stand on.
Most philosophy is not anthropocentric. And most individuals do not become
philosophers is their youth. So I am curious as to what extreme
anti-anthropocentric
philosophy you were exposed to in your youth.
Furthermore, my recent hero of choice is Josiah Royce, the
Absolute Idealist who utterly refutes this stance and proves
logically that the entire universe is made within the context of
absolute value - and that the structure of the cosmos is an
ethical culture. I see my task here as to bring Royce to the
Pirsigians in metaphysically confirmational way, in opposition
to W. James - Royce's lifelong friend and philosophical antagonist.
I'm acquainted with James but have not read Royce. The Harvard Encyclopedia
of Philosophy quotes this statement by Royce: "My life means nothing, either
theoretically or practically, unless I am a member of a community." You
won't have a problem selling that to the Pirsigians, since they've been
preaching it for decades. It's their tenet that the Social Level gives rise
to the Intellectual (individual) Level.
The article goes on to explain Royce's collectivist concept of
individuality:
"One of the more striking features of Royce's philosophy is its emphasis on
communities as being logically prior to individuals. As we have seen, Royce
considers the notions of truth and knowledge unintelligible for the
individual unless we posit an ultimate knower of objective truth, the
infinite community of minds. The notions of personal identity and purpose
are likewise unintelligible unless we posit a community of persons that
defines causes and establishes social roles for those individuals to
embrace."
RMP must have been influenced by Royce even more than Rorty, as "infinite
community of minds" fits the MoQ's collective consciousness like a glove.
You're right John; we are indeed miles apart.
That's just who I am right now. I'm open, but I've got my
static baggage like anybody.
And secondly; I still like the term "People of Quality". I use it
in my head all the time and guess what? It includes you, Ham.
Well, that's mighty generous of you, considering that I don't for a second
equate having epicurean tastes with the quality of "me".
Even though we fundamentally disagree, you care about Quality.
Royce wrote a wonderful philosophy of Loyalty with a chapter
called "Loyalty to Loyalty" and it resonates with Caring about Quality.
And I know it when I see it.
I don't see it in Individual Valuism.
There is no other kind of Valuism. "Loyalty to loyalty" makes no sense to
me. I know he's talking about a community with a common cause. But since
value is something we want or desire, even in a collective sense, how can we
not be "loyal" to our own values?
But thanks for responding, John. It would appear that you are well on your
way to adopting the "Quality People's" party line.
Best wishes,
Ham
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/
