John, Gee John, you'll have to give me a little time to get to what I believe, why I think its good, etc. I'm moving there. I'm gradually, methodically making an argument, a caring argument. You seem to suggest that I'm not.
As to the knowing what is good etc. how we know, I promise to start a thread on eoq soon. As to this comment of yours: "Well a high Quality metaphysics should absolutize the changeless AS change, and that takes care of the problem nicely, which is what the MoQ and Tao are all about so I think they're good systems. This is the core of my disagreement with you. Taoism and the moq do not treat the changless and the dynamic equally. The simply claim to. It is the dq, the changing reality that is given precedence, that is absolutizes in these systems. The changeless, is relativised. It is only for a season, it is maya, illusion. Change is the absoulte. There is no transcendence here of the principle of absolute change. There is no absolute change even acknowledged. By contrast, modern science, and the enlightenment, were the exact opposite. They explained ALL change, in terms of the changless. This is especially evident in Newtonian physics. Alexander Koyre' referred to it as a changless change, in a timeless time. All was static in this view, even motion was explained in terms of rest and this was the key to undestanding the law of inertia. It was a marriage of our two principles of Being and becoming, let's call them Heaven and earth, that left Being, Heaven dominant. The Tao and the moq is likewise a combination of these two opposing principles, but one that sees Becoming, or Earth as dominant. This becomes clearer when you realize that these two fundamental principles are also two differing ways of SEEING! If you are looking at it from an eastern, lunar, moq, taoist, becoming, perspective you will see no conflict. But that's not the whole story if you look at it from the perspective of Being, of Heaven, of the Changless principle, from a classical perspective, you see the two as inalterably opposed. And there is no way to alter or transcend these two poles. View 1 sees the poles as arranged in a hierarchy and absolutely other. View 2 sees the poles as compatible and lying in the same plane, with no real , or absolute, distinction. View 1 and view 2 cannot be harmonized, transcended or ignored. It is illusory to thinks so. Oh, they can be harmonized SOMETIME. But not in every case and moq-tao absolutizes this principle and this leads to deception. Which is precisely why it leads to the political results I have mentioned. Human rights, etc. did not evolve from view 2 and can never be sustained. It's too evolutionary. The rights will be washed away and relativized. This view which sees all as coming from some undifferentiated, unknowable Oneness, is not the one that human rights evolved from. You can see this theoretically and as a matter of historical fact. You can see it theoretically because it doesn't allow for the reality of an absolute indiviual entity of any sort whatsoever, not to mention an individual person, and absolute, or inalianble rights. Bye for now. JB Reme On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > JB, > > > > Mog absolutizes change at the expense of an absolute changeless. Although > > moq, like taoism, claims to incorporate change and transcend the > conflict, > > it never does, it never can! > > > > Well a high Quality metaphysics should absolutize the changeless AS change, > and that takes care of the problem nicely, which is what the MoQ and Tao > are > all about so I think they're good systems. > > Good systems. > > And how do I know what is good and what is not good? Especially when > deciding upon a metaphysics! Where do I start? How can I decide which > definition of good to follow in deciding which definition of good is any > good? And how many mirrors am I gonna need for the journey? > > The MoQ answers this question to my satisfaction. I find it a "good tool" > for thinking with. > > How about you Jon? What is your justification for your beliefs? Is your > God any Good? > > That's the kind of conversation we have here. We bring all things into the > open, we examine all pre-suppositions, under the banner of reason. Not > simply analytic intellect, but sweet Reason - wisdom tempered with caring. > Mere dogmatic assertion doesn't go over that well. > > As you may have noticed. > > > > > Change is the guiding principle of moq, not absolute changelessness, > which > > is the driving principle of the Enlightenment. That is why moq does not > > transcend the classic (enlightenment) and the romantic divide, although > > this > > is its central claim, it is an illusion. > > > > > Now this seems a reasonable criticism, but I disagree with your conclusion. > The MoQ's trance-zen-dance is eminently real and demonstrable. Not an > illusion at all. For instance, in my question of how you know whether your > idea of God is any good, I demonstrated how having a metaphysical basis for > answering this question can come in handy. > > > > > You can't not have your cake, and eat it too! > > > > Sure you can! Just don't eat the whole thing. > > > > > Tell me more of Royce, I have some books about him but am not up on his > > thought. And how do you see him related to James and Pirsig. > > > > > > Well his relationship to James is straightforward enough. Lifelong friend > and debating partner and fellow teacher at Harvard, Royce the philosopher > and James the psychologist. Much of their writing and thinking was formed > by dialogue with one another. An immensely productive friendship. > > Royce's relationship to the MoQ is a bit trickier to establish but the way > it came to me was from reading his Eureka moment while wrestling with > skepticism (Schopenhauer's stance, to be exact) and reasoned out the > metaphysical certainty of the existence of error, and then working out the > details of that into an entire system. Royce was a great logician. He's a > delight to read, although technical at times, he also wrote much for the > masses including a few novels and a very interesting (to me anyway) history > of California. > > What intrigued me was the similarity in his reasoning and process to > Pirsig's struggle to define what is good. Both men came to the > irrefutability of valuation as the primary empirical basis of experience, > but from opposite sides of the same coin. > > >From what I've studied Royce's Absolute Idealism shares a perennial > congruence to the MoQ, for what is Quality BUT an Absolute Ideal? > > dmb relies upon a statement Pirsig made in LC that he doesn't like the > connotations of the term "Absolute" and this obviates any possible quality > Royce's thought could have. But that's dmb for ya. > > > Good luck son, > > I can see you're gonna need it. > > JC > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Jon > > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM, John COne iarl <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > J.B., > > > > > > By all means, take your time. No rush at all. You seem like you have > > some > > > very interesting points to discuss and I'm looking forward to debating > > > them. > > > > > > Pirsig's Moq can be understood by tracing philosophical and theological > > > > thought since Kant, and before of course. He embodies our current > > > paradigm > > > > that is rooted in eastern thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Eastern thought" as a monolithic whole seems to me as tricky to > > > conceptualize as "western thought" from where I'm standing on this > round > > > planet, as I pointed out yesterday. It might help to narrow the focus. > > > > > > You could even call Christianity an "eastern thought", and I have found > > > much > > > to appreciate and defend in Buddhism, but nothing I've really cared for > > in > > > Hinduism. And there are differing schools of Buddhism with Zen being > > such > > > a > > > particular and hyper-pure offshoot that it's way seems long way from > the > > > Middle Way. > > > > > > Thus, you'll have to pin down the concepts you're attacking. > > > > > > Eventually. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read Schopenhauer and the way he > > > > explains Kant and the history of philosophy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I haven't read Schopenhauer. I only know he's the philosopher that > > > begins with "S". (monty python allusion) And I've read what Josiah > > Royce > > > thought of him (enthusiasm). > > > > > > Have you ever heard of Josiah Royce? He's my main classical interest > and > > I > > > pretty much joined the list (or technically "rejoined") because I > wanted > > to > > > discuss him with the many W. James followers found in the MoQ. Which > > > didn't > > > work out quite the way I planned, but it's been an engrossing > engagement > > > nevertheless. > > > > > > > > > > Schopenhauer introduced the Eastern texts to the West. And it is from > > the > > > > wake of Kant, Schop, and Hegel and the German Idealists, thru Niet. > and > > > > Heidegger that we get the same message of Pirsig. And this is the > same > > > > message written up in a recent Newsweek article-we are all Hindus > now! > > > > > > > > > > Royce has a quote regarding being regarded as an "Hegelian" which I > think > > > is > > > apropos of Pirsig as well, which is the only true Hegelians were Hegel > > and > > > his immediate followers. Like "eastern thought" I find it a term too > > broad > > > of interpretation to be truly helpful. > > > > > > Hinduism just never clicked with me. I'm with Guatama on that one. > > > > > > > > > This is our current paradigm, and this is the wave Pirsig was riding > and > > > why > > > > he hit such a nerve. But its traceable back to this great turn in > > > > philosophy > > > > in the West, and you can even trace it back to the beginning of the > > 12th > > > > century and the rise of the Sensate age, to use Sorokin's > terminology. > > > > > > > > What we see in the 20th and 21st centuries is a breakdown of the > > sensate > > > > era > > > > and a shift to and idealistic age, again from Sorokin. The Moq is > > totally > > > > understandable in this light and is just one more example of this > great > > > > turn > > > > in the history of the West, which I believe is a turn in the wrong, > and > > > in > > > > a > > > > tragic, direction. > > > > > > > > > > > I guess my question for you then is the same as I have for the mullah > who > > > blames earthquakes on seductively dressed women. Why does this go only > > one > > > way? If biblical teachings produced all the individual freedoms and > > human > > > rights that we enjoy today, then why didn't those same teachings > produce > > a > > > satisfactory modern paradigm? > > > > > > You can say, "because mankind chose to abandon them", but if they > formed > > > our > > > society, how do you know it wasn't God's will to produce a society that > > > eventually abandons biblical teachings? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, it will take a while for me to make this case as I would > like. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of that, I'm sure! Good luck with the book. I'll be here. > > > > > > J.C. > > > 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 > > > > > 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 > > > 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 > 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
