dmb said:
Pragmatism (or Humanism, as James preferred to call it) was practically
invented to defeat Absolute Idealism.
John replied:
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 meanings, 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 says:
Um, you're not getting the simple point here John. You are equating opposed
visions. You are tone-deaf to the stark differences between these things. James
and Pirsig are both offering a way to reconcile these opposed visions and maybe
that's what has you so confused. But your stance amounts to equating the
classic and the romantic or taking one as a version of the other or something.
I'm not sure exactly how you manage to blur these distinctions, but it's pretty
messed up.
dmb said:
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 said:
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 says:
Oh dude, you are so lost. First of all, "buttoned-up prigs" is not a
projection. It's James's phrase and I used it to refer to a James quote in
which he uses that description, a quote that I've posted here about ten times.
And if you think radical empiricism is a metaphysical entity, then you surely
do not know what the term means.
That's why I don't want to discuss with you, John. I think you don't really
know what you're talking about. Sorry.
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
