Evenin' David,
> 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. > To clarify a bit, basically I'm not content to argue points made by sources I don't know or don't trust. My dismissal is just based on my ignorance. It seems more fair to me to debate starting from a commonly agreed understanding of what we're talking about, and part of my contention all along is that Royce has been misunderstood and he's a lot closer to Pirsig than people realize. If you use the sources of confusion that make it impossible for me to show you the alternate view, then we'll never really get anywhere. > 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. > > If you mean Philosophers antagonize one another constantly... yeah. I'm starting to get that impression. :) . I don't think a bad pragmatist ever killed anybody with their hackery, but > still. It's important to have standards.> > Well I do want to argue that point. Like do you ever wonder if the American Pragmatism's "cash values" were found useful by Hitler? But let's save that one for another day and stick to the defining of Royce's Absolute. A big enough task to start! > 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. > > Or at least, not necessarily. Sometimes moreso, sometimes less. Depends upon the system which is using the term. > > 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? > > Well before we dive into Royce, we're nailing down the possibilities of definition of an Absolute, and if Pirsig's systems could be labeled such. Quality does seem to me to be a species of Absolutism - that is, Quality is used by Pirsig to represent "Absolute Good", even though he doesn't call it that specifically, that's what it is. And that's what I meant about the comparison with Taoism. The MoQ is quite comfortable being seen as compatible with Taoism, Taoism is defined by wiki as a religion with an Absolute, ipso facto cogito ergo summation or whatever fancy terms you pros use when you've think you've got a conclusion... the MoQ is an Absolutism. Doesn't that make sense? > > 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 > Excellent. I think I just did in fact. I'd appreciate Pirsig's exact wording in refuting Absolutisms to see if I can't wedge apart an opening. > 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. Good point and something I've been contemplating all day. Truth to tell, when reading Royce I tend to skim. But his thought is worth picking apart. I'll do my best. > 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. > > Well wait a minute. I've been doing a lot of that. Dibs and dabs at differing time and in differing ways. but you've been off elsewhere so how could I be formatting my discourse at your preferred format when you weren't there to take it in? I did appreciate Marsha's question about Evolution, because I think she remembered that I'd gone over that before and when you brought it up you hadn't realized that I actually had posted quite a bit about Royce's theistic embrace of evolution. So... my task is to put some words in a row defining Royce's Absolute, and yours is to gather Pirsig's commentary on Absolutes in general. But not to tonight. I'm tired. In the morning, I think. Graciously yours, John 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
