Hey John, What exactly are you selling here? Theism? Religion? Absolute Idealism? I don't get the fancy dance'n accusation? Why would such tactics be required?
Marsha, the naive. On Aug 15, 2010, at 12:52 PM, John Carl wrote: > John: > > Ok, I said I believe it's an infinite process. Infinite processes don't > mind taking time to develop. The goal is, to get through the whole thing > eventually. > > > Cop: > > The idealist metaphysics was thus a spiritualist metaphysics, in the sense > that for it ultimate reality was in some sense spiritual. And it follows > that idealism was sharply opposed to materialism. > > RMP: > > The MOQ is not opposed to materialism as long is it is understood that > materialism is a set of ideas. > > John: > > You gotta love the guy. Look at him dodge and weave! What a complicated > tour-de-force! > > As before, materialism is certainly NOT held to be a set of ideas. At least > not by materialists. > > Cop: > > In so far indeed as the phenomenalists tried to go beyond the dispute > between materialism and spiritualism by reducing both minds and physical > objects to phenomena which cannot properly be described either as spiritual > or as material, we cannot legitimately call them materialists. But these > phenomena were evidently something very different from the one spiritual > reality of the idealists. And in any case we have seen that on the more > positivistic side of the empiricist movement there appeared an at least > methodological materialism, the so-called scientific materialism, a line of > thought for which the idealists had no sympathy. > > > RMP" > > If the Quantum theory can be called scientifically materialistic, then the > MOQ supports scientific materialism. > > John: > > Oh. We've already covered this, haven't we. Mistake then. > > What do we do with mistakes? > > Deal with them. > > Ok, question one. Can Quantum theory be called scientifically > materialistic? I count the votes. The MD says "no". So therefore, this is > a set-up sorta deal. The MoQ certainly does not support scientific > materialism. SOM supports scientific materialism, and while SOM is the > dominant paradigm, as an intellectual pattern it is the enemy and antithesis > of the MoQ, so OBVIOUSLY, the MoQ cannot suppport scientific materialism. > What is basic premise #1 of scientific materialism? That Value is > subjective. > > Ok, so let's move on, with the realization that RMP is being very cagey for > some reason. Perhaps the future will reveal all > > Cop: > > With its emphasis on the spiritual character of ultimate reality and on the > relation between the finite spirit and infinite Spirit idealism stood for a > religious outlook as against materialistic positivism and the tendency of > empiricism in general to by-pass religious problems or to leave room, at > best for a somewhat vague agnosticism. > > John: > > Ok. We get down to the big bug-a-boo, eh? Theism. Idealism allows the > possibility of theistic philosophy. Therefore it must be rejected at all > cost. I mean, we've suffered under the constraints of theistic philosophy > for millinia. Its time for intellect to break free. That's why Idealism > must go. Never mind that some practitioners and theorists are actually > agnostic, or even atheistic, the fact is, that if Theism gains any toehold > in the Academy, it will be through Idealism, and thus Idealism must be > suppressed at all costs. > > This is interesting to Pirsigians, because it reveals an underlying motive > for the rejection of the MoQ by the Academy. If the MoQ has any sort of > Idealistic overtones, it could lead to that dreaded Theism creeping back in > and then we'll have a buncha fundamentalist yahoos up our ass over the age > of the earth and whether joshua ben nun really did stop the earth's rotation > for trivial purposes. .. There's a pragmatic need for this stance. > > > RMP: > > The MOQ is an atheistic religious outlook that solves rather than bypasses > religious problems. > > John: > > You gotta give credit to the guy, he's tap-dancing up a storm here. > > Cop: > > Indeed, a good deal of the popularity of idealism was due to the > conviction that it stood firmly on the side of religion. To be sure, with > Bradley, the greatest of the British idealists, the concept of God passed > into that of the Absolute, and religion was depicted as a level of > consciousness which is surpassed in metaphysical philosophy, while > McTaggart, the Cambridge idealist, was an atheist. > > RMP: > > The MOQ agrees with both. > > John: > > See what I mean? If that's not some fancy dancin', I dunno what is. > > Cop: > > But with the earlier idealists the religious motive was much in evidence, > and idealism seemed to be the natural home of those who were concerned with > preserving a religious outlook in face of the threatening incursions of > agnostics, positivists and materialists. > > John: > > Ok, note the list of enemies here. agnostic, positivist, materialists. > > RMP: > > The MOQ resolves this conflict and thus takes both sides. > > John: > > Ok, at this point I'd like to pause and ask a question. How? How does the > MoQ take both sides? > > I would agree that the MoQ can take either side, given a particular time and > context. But these two sides are opposed, and at one time, a certain side > would be the better Quality way to go, and then at another time, perhaps the > other would be better. After millinia of religious control, materialistic > views were vitally needed to counter the cultural and logical effects of so > many years of priestly control of intellect, and thus would be a > higher-quality way to go at that time. But the MoQ wouldn't say that > "preserving a religious outlook" in those times, would be just as good. It > plainly wouldn't. Everybody can see that, especially from hindsight. In > the moment, in purely dialogic comparison, betterness always IS. > > > Otherwise, you're saying, you're Quality isn't any good. Your salt has lost > it's savor. Betterness is always real. > > So how can one take "both sides" from an MoQ perspective, hmmm??? > > CoP: > > Further, after Bradley and Bosanquet idealism turned from absolute to > personal idealism and was once again favourable to Christian theism, though > by that time the impetus of the movement was already spent. > > John: > > "Personal" sounds subjective, to me, and thus on the wrong end of the horny > bull. So I'm gonna focus on the Absolute kinds of Idealism, as that's the > main point of my thesis of the MoQ as a species of Absolute Idealism. > > And the ongoing topic at hand as well, since we end with Bradley and Royce > and their individual stances of Absolute Idealism. > 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
