Thanks dave, for the thoughtful and thought-provoking response. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:36 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
> > "The concept of the Absolute was re-introduced into philosophy by Hegel, > Schelling, and their followers; it is associated with various forms of > philosophical idealism. The Absolute, either under that name, or as the > "Ground of Being", or some similar concept, also figures in several of the > attempted proofs of the existence of God, particularly the ontological > argument and the cosmological argument. In scholastic philosophy the > Absolute was regarded as Pure Act, unadulterated with remaining potential. John: "unadulterated with remaining potential" sounds nefarious, to me dave. I mean, what's wrong with "remaining potential". I find it holds all hope and reason for being, don't you? If there's no remaining potential, no goal of growth, then it's a closed end. A done deal. A fool's game, and I ain't playin. There's gotta be a remaining potential. Always. contuing the wiki'ed thoughts: > The concept was adopted into neo-Hegelian British idealism (though without > Hegel's complex logical and dialectical apparatus), where it received an > almost mystical exposition at the hands of F.H. Bradley. Bradley (followed > by others including Timothy L.S. Sprigge) conceived the Absolute as a single > all-encompassing experience, rather along the lines of Shankara and Advaita > Vedanta. John: Right. I agree completely. And see congruence with the MoQ, in it's fellow congruence with easternish mysticisms. Eh? > Likewise, Josiah Royce in the United States conceived the Absolute as a > unitary Knower Whose experience constitutes what we know as the "external" > world." (Wiki) > > Compare Pragmatism, etc.: > > John: His thinking on this continued to evolve after James' death, under the influence of Peirce. That's how he (Royce) finally ended up with Absolute Pragmatism. But as per requested, I won't discuss that with you. > > > John said to Adrie: > > I thought pragmatism was supposed to be pragmatic. One damn universe at a > time, please. One universe, as big as infinite thought, which contains > (probably) multiple stages of play - where the rules are different, behind > that curtain, yes. I get that. I just don't see the need for a ridiculous > kludge like "multi-uni-verse". Sorry Adrie. Sorry William. > > > > dmb says: > > Pragmatism (or Humanism, as James preferred to call it) was practically > invented to defeat Absolute Idealism. John: Well it often works that way when you are locked in to dialogic combat, eh? Just like Bo's SOL was invented to overturn the MoQ. When you spend your time struggling with fine philosophic disputation, you come up with terms and meanings which help you in you arguments. And thus to fully understand the terms and meanins, one needs to understand the underlying context of the disputation. Which is why I think a study of Royce is valuable to understanding James.\ oops. It slipped in and I said I wouldn't discuss him with you. Sorry. dmb: As he saw it, Absolutism was just another name for orthodox theology. It was > the philosophy of buttoned-up prigs who insisted that feelings have nothing > to do with the truth. The block universe, he called it. The Absolute itself, > he thought, was a metaphysical fiction. It was the kind of > "trans-experiential entity" that his radically empirical method will not > admit. But more to the point... > John: Well if you ask me, much the same charges could be made against his "radical empiricism". It too is, after all, a metaphysical fiction. Just like "its all an analogy." Everything is, dave. Everything is. The only question is "how good is your metaphysical fiction?" And speaking of "buttoned up prigs", methinkest thou art projecting again. dmb: > "The truth is too great for any one actual mind, even thought that mind be > dubbed 'the Absolute,' to know the whole of it. The facts and worths of life > need many cognizers to take them in. The is no point of view absolutely > public and universal." (James says in the intro to his "Talks to Teachers") > "The practical consequences of such a philosophy is the well-known > democratic respect for the sacredness of individuality - is, at any rate, > the outward tolerance of whatever in not itself intolerant." > > John: As is the position of Absolute Pragmatism which describes the process of attaining the undefinable absolute as the infinite process of the great community. I see no conflict or problem there. But then, I'm an optimistically idealistic son-of-a-gun. 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
