dmb: On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > John said: > So dmb, the way you describe this process is that you're the art critic, and > all the other posters are the artists. Since you portray yourself as the > discriminator here. I don't think that's a good idea. > > dmb says: > > YOU don't think it's a good idea to discriminate between good ideas and bad > ones?
John: What I said, dave, is I don't think it's a good idea for YOU to be the discriminator, and all of us mere pupils in your classroom. Dmb ridiculously continues: That's ridiculous on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. You're doing exactly what you say shouldn't be done; discriminating. And posting ideas and criticisms of those ideas are the essence of what we're supposed to be doing. John: I agree. But I'm not the one attempting to shut down views antithetical to my own. I'm not the one who ceases dialogue when it's not going my way. I'm not the one who thinks that a huge proportion of humanity (theism) should be excluded from the dialogue on Quality. ahem. dmb: That's what makes the process work, that's how we sift out the better ideas and get rid of the bad ones. Just because I described my perspective, which is what you asked about, certainly doesn't mean I'm the only one participating in this process or that I'm the sole arbiter. Who doesn't post their opinions and critique the posted opinions of others? I mean, it goes without saying because everyone can plainly see that. Like I said, if you're posting ideas that are so weak or confused that they can be disputed by a common dictionary, you probably don't belong here. That's actually setting the bar pretty low, don't you think? Or do you suppose encyclopedia are just too elitist? John: You misconstrued my prior criticisms of wiki and SEP. The point I was making was that they also cannot be the sole arbiters of Quality. Especially in areas where its known, admittedly by reading other experts, that the mainstream view has got it all wrong in some areas. Acceptance of the MoQ is one such area and I have much support (and more all the time) from other experts, that acceptance of Royce is another. For instance, I've become quite enamored of an article by John Durham Peters on Jorge Luis Borges and Royce. He also refutes your auto-wiki reactionary label of Royce as Hegelian: "Here we should pause to consider the irregularities of interna- tional philosophical reception. That Borges calls Royce a Hegelian shows his debt to between-war English-language philosophical doxa, a view that misunderstood both Royce and Hegel. First, Hegel was never an absolute idealist in the English style. Late nineteenth-century Anglo-American idealists inflated Hegel to such a degree that James mocked them for acting as if they were going up in a hot-air balloon every time the notion of the tran- scendental Ego crossed their minds (1: 365). German and French thinkers would rediscover a very different, more worldly and dy- namic (i.e. Marxist) Hegel in the 19 0s and 1930s, a Hegel that did not start to appear in English until well into the second half of the twentieth century. Second, Royce is not exactly a Hegelian. He partook in a much wider legacy of post-Kantian idealism than just Hegel, and was critical of Hegel on several counts, includ- ing his hostility to the empirical sciences and his neglect of logic and mathematics. Royce’s philosophy was: “post-Kantian, empirically modified, Idealism, somewhat influenced by Hegel, but Royce’s Spirit of Modern Philosophy clearly demonstrates his debt to nineteenth-century thought, including a large dose of Schopenhauerian motives, with a dash of Fichte added” (Clendenning, 1 ). We can thus forgive Borges the expedient of “hegeliano.” (tho not dmb, who should know better than to just consult his wiki) Though Royce called his philoso- phy absolute idealism for most of his career, his thinking grew increasingly close to James, eventually leading to a final position he called, without considering it an oxymoron, “absolute pragma- tism” (Royce, Problem of Christianity). It is certainly fair to include Royce under the broad pragmatist umbrella, at least as a participant in the conversation." dmb: Am I just being a snob or is this whole thing suppose to be about QUALITY? John: Exactly. And what is good? Do we NEED ANYONE to TELL US THESE THINGS????? If it's simply a matter of looking it up in Academically defined and summarized articles, then I guess we can all just sit back and stop thinking, eh? dmb: Man, it sure would be nice to simply assume that everyone here truly and genuinely cares about intellectual excellence. That's what everyone shoots for in their own efforts and that's what everyone admires most in the efforts of others. Being smart and right doesn't mean you can't be funny or colorful or artful or even snarky. Quite the opposite. Who wouldn't like to read or write something that has all that and more? John (blushing): hey, I agree completely. Your welcome. But may I point out that my main beef here with you, is that while I'm open and willing to your participation and dialogue, you are closed to mine. So I'm more moral than you are. Nyah-nyah. John - finally allowed participation in the dialogue 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
