John said to dmb:
Let's be clear dave, what I'm saying is that according to Kuklick, and I agree
with him, just any old published summary of Royce's thought is not acceptable
as authoritative because of the factors of non-scholarship that have
contributed to ignorance about him. Thus a general compendium isn't going to
be a helpful published source, but a focused study of his writings by a scholar
who has really put the time and effort, is. You can't be the sole arbiter of
what counts as authoritative in a debate. I may not be a pro, but even I know
that.
dmb says:
Mostly, I agree. But the sources I've used (except wiki of course) are written
by scholars for scholars. That's why I find it so unreasonable to dismiss them.
This doesn't mean they're right or that other scholars will disagree but it
does mean that it has been evaluated by their peers in the profession.
Disagreement drives the whole process, in fact. James described one of his
critics, a very famous a well respected figure, "malevolent and stupid" and
another he described as having the "intelligence of an inorganic body". It's
fun to watch. This doesn't mean they are smarter or better than the rest of us.
It just means they've done the work and can demonstrate their competence to
others who have done the work. It's not perfect, but this system is pretty good
and it's worked for a century or two. It's not the best possibly could have but
is it the best the we actually have. If that's not good enough for you, then
nothing could be. That's why your dismissal seems so unreasonab
le.
In the same way that Kuklick wants to make a case that Royce has been
misunderstood and neglected, there are two scholars named Taylor and Wozniak
who claim that William James's radical empiricism has been misunderstood for a
hundred years and they want to correct that. They are definitely not the only
one's defending James against others who are critical of James or who
appropriate him without really understanding him. My point? There is nothing at
all unique of Kuklick's approach. In fact, it's pretty typical.
dmb said:...what could be better than quoting James, Pirsig, Royce, or the
scholars who write about them? The SEP, by the way, is peer reviewed and as a
valid source it is considered to be nearly as good as an academic journal.
Anthologies are usually compiled by people who are at the top of their field
and are also considered to be a totally valid scholarly source.
John replied:
Sometimes the most popular scholars get it wrong.
dmb said:
Of course. Where did get the impression that "valid source" means "guaranteed
rightness"? By that logic, no one with a law degree ever made a legal mistake
and nobody with a medical degree ever made a medical mistake. But that's just
not how it works. Such degrees only tell us that they really are lawyers or
that they really are doctors, not that they are infallible. Same with scholars,
plumbers and electricians. It just a way to make sure people know what they're
doing. In the case of doctors and pilots, we most certainly want to know that
they know what they're doing. I don't think a bad pragmatist ever killed
anybody with their hackery, but still. It's important to have standards.>
>
>
>
>
> > John said:
> > And if we're stuck at the "well my sources are better than your sources"
> > then I guess we're stuck.
> >
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > But I don't recall ANY of your sources speaking to the issue, to the
> > Absolute. That's a big part of why you got the double dare to explain it.
> > But you never did. So I whipped out my wiki.
> >
> >
>
> Fair enough. We do need a clear agreement on what is meant by "absolute" in
> general. I went back to wiki and got the rest of the stuff you left out in
> your clippage:
>
> wiki>
>
> The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends
> limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is often used as an alternate
> term for a "God" or "the Divine", especially, but by no means exclusively,
> by those who feel that the term "God" lends itself too easily to
> anthropomorphic presumptions. The concept of The Absolute may or may not
> (depending on one's specific doctrine) possess discrete will, intelligence,
> awareness or even a personal nature. It is sometimes conceived of as the
> source through which all being emanates. It contrasts with finite things,
> considered individually, and known collectively as the relative. As such,
> the word "Absolute" signifies a negative concept: non-relative,
> non-comparative, or without relation to anything else. This is reflected in
> its Latin origin absolūtus which means "loosened from" or "unattached."
>
> Examples of religions and philosophies which embrace the concept of the
> Absolute in one form or another include Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, Islam,
> some forms of Jewish philosophy, and existential or metaphysical forms of
> Christianity. Terms which serve to identify The Absolute [1] among such
> beliefs include the Tao (the Way), Brahman, Parabrahman, God, the Divine and
> numerous other appellations.[citation needed]
>
> The human vital essence - soul, spirit, spark of awareness, is said to have
> originally derived in each case from the Absolute,[citation needed] and to
> be indestructible after the nature of the Absolute, and to be capable of
> returning to its source. This returning is the goal of those Eastern
> religions that have such a concept.
>
> The general commonalities between the various versions of the Absolute are:
> infinity, indescribability, formlessness, transcendence and immanence
>
> /wiki>
>
>
John said:
I'll accept that (wiki) as a fair and fairly complete definition. I notice you
in your earlier statement associated it with that anthropomorphic view that you
reject, but wiki says that is "not necessarily".
dmb says:
No, actually I said the Absolute was basically God without the beard and
trousers, which means the Absolute is NOT an anthropomorphic God.
John said:Leaving aside all the rest, why don't we focus tightly upon this one
point first. What is an absolute and whether Pirsig's system uses such. It's
a very good place to start. From the wiki comparison of Tao, it doesn't seem as
ridiculous an assertion as you make it out to be.
dmb says:
Okay but I've already started and that has been my focus all along. Comparisons
to Taoism are definitely more fruitful but Royce was no Taoist so let's not
stretch things to far out of shape to make them fit, eh?
John said:
Examine that definition of Absolute and if you agree with me that we can use
that then we'll have an adequate textual foundation for philosophical
engagement. I asserting the commonality of Royce's Absolute with Pirsig's MoQ,
you against. Are we good?
dmb says:
Yea, that's good. But again, that's what I've doing already. Pirsig doesn't
mention Royce, as far as I know. but he on record rejecting the Absolute. Maybe
a good place to start would be an explanation as to how you can make those
statements mean something other than a rejection. I don't see that happening
but give it shot. I'm listening
Oh, one more thing. You seem to be okay with wiki as a starting point after
all, but I'm still going to press you for an explanation of the Absolute. I
mean, if it is so important and so central to this discussion and since you're
such a fan anyway, I think you should do whatever work it takes to be able to
articulate exactly what it is you're defending. I really don't think this is
too much to ask. In fact, it's a bit weird that you didn't begin there months
ago. Since I have asked over and over without getting an answer, I remain
skeptical about whether or not you even know what it is you're talking about.
And IF you don't then trying to determine whether or not it is compatible with
the MOQ simply won't be possible. That's fair, isn't it? I've try to be patient
about this but you really got step up at some point and put some words in row.
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
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/md/archives.html
