Well I did promise a full explication of Royce's Absolute, and I would like to finish my task, without being distracted by ongoing dialogue, which I have done, but haven't yet sent. I thought I'd wait till I got my half of the argument successfully completed, which hopefully this missive will accomplish, and I can move on to more important things - the low road. The scratchings in the lowly dirt that hold the hopes for all people's. The City on the Hill, still alive, moving underground. Like Rabbits... With carrots.
And sticks. Further explaining Royce's Absolute AS Direct Experience (DQ) I continue: We are directly presented only with our own ideas. Let us assume that they "correspond" to the real world outside ourselves (and please don't bore me Dave with another definition and dismissal of "the correspondence theory of truth.- Listen. ) although we will not discuss this correspondence now. Given that in our consciousness a and b are related, we assume a similar relation A:B in the external world. What is the most plausible hypothesis concerning the nature of the terms A and B in this assumed external world? Berkeley contends that there corresponds to finite consciousness a higher and furthur reaching consciousness, containing "all that is abiding in our consciousness and much more besides." There is no external world but this other consciousness; the statements we make about it are true, for example, if our present experiences correspond to the experiences of this higher consciousness which ours are about. Each possible and actual experience of every moment in our lives and all the possible and actual experiences which comprise our universe will be "represented" by some momentarily present fact in external consciousness. The relations of these facts will be similar in nature and in complexity to the relations among the facts of our actual or possible experiences. And the consciousness of this "universal Knowing One" will determine the limits of possible experience. "this supposed universal knowing consciousness, this "not ourselves" has, under the conditions stated, all the essential (Hey Ham, how they hangin'?) characteristics of a real world. It is beyond us; it is independent of us; its facts have a certain correspondence to our sensations. Under the supposition that by nature we tend to be in agreement with this consciousness, progress in the definiteness and extent of our agreement with it may be both possible and practically useful. (I John Carl, for one have found it so.) This agreement would constitute truth. No other real world need be supposed behind or above this consciousness." Royce This consciousness is not a creator but a seer. It does not make or unmake individual beings; on the contrary, they are made or unmade when patterns that we call organic living bodies arise or disappear in the universal consciousness. Does this answer your question Marsha, about Royce's relation to Buddhism? Any of it ringing bells yet? These patterns pass and with them passes the individual consciousness with which they co-existed. The growth and decay is a "law of experience" -- "an ultimate and inexplicable sequence". We make no claims about the dependence or independence of finite consciousness on the external consciousness, but assert only the one-to-one relationship. Are you starting to understand how Royce's Absolute is Direct Experience, or DQ, yet dave? This analysis is only a hypothesis. It is merely an elaboration and clarification of Royce's thought as it had developed prior to the Religious Aspect of Philosophy. He claims that is simple, intelligible, and plausible. And I agree. But his committement to it as anything other than hypothesis depends on more far-reaching considerations of the other aspects of idealism to be explored. If we're gonna do that, that is. Which is doubtful, at present. Every time I hit the ball to you, it comes back at me into the net or sailing far, far away over the fence. But at least I've outlined the general gist of Royce's Absolute, as requested. And upon which my conviction that his Absolute is DQ is based. Which was my goal. His logical basis upon the existence of error, is part of his logic supporting, but I've done that before and I don't usually repeat myself too often. I'm weird, but I'm not Bo. 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
