John said:
.., I find a great deal of worthy discussion there concerning Royce's
congruence and the MoQ - that here there really is something which "It and the
MOQ can be spliced together with no difficulty into a broader explanation of
the same thing".
dmb says:
No, jon. That's exactly what the evidence does NOT say. This is a good example
of what I've been complaining about. The textual evidence says "it" can be
spliced together with the MOQ and you're trying to pull some kind of dishonest
trick wherein "it" is Royce's Absolutism. But that's not what "it" is. Look at
the evidence!
Pirsig said:
... the MOQ rejects [REJECTS!!!] the metaphysical assertion that the
fundamental reality of the world is idea. But the description of Bradley as an
idealist is completely incorrect. Bradley’s fundamental assertion is that the
reality of the world is intellectually unknowable, and that defines him as a
mystic. [Bradley's assertion is NOT idealism and so it is NOT what the MOQ
rejects.] Both he and the MOQ are expressing what Aldous Huxley called "The
Perennial Philosophy," which is perennial, I believe, because it happens to be
true. [The perennial philosophy is philosophical mysticism, NOT idealism.]
Bradley has given an excellent description of what the MOQ calls Dynamic
Quality and an excellent rational justification for its intellectual
acceptance. It and the MOQ can be spliced together with no difficulty into a
broader explanation of the same thing. [The thing that can be spliced together
with the MOQ is BRADLEY's mystical assertion, NOT idealism.]
Now, I've already been through this with you several times. [Where's the
apology for your slander to the contrary, by the way?] I honestly don't know
how to make it any clearer. I've repeatedly explained every sentence in this
passage to you several times and yet you still use it to support the very thing
it rejects. This only proves once again that you are not honestly facing up to
the evidence. As Pirsig points out, Quality and the Absolute are in some sense
opposites.
Pirisg said:
"Rhetorically, the word "absolute" conveys nothing except rigidity and
permanence and authoritarianism and remoteness. "Quality," on the other hand
conveys flexibility, impermanence, here-and-now-ness and freedom."
Likewise, at the end of chapter 29, Pirsig says:
"The Metaphysics of Quality is a continuation of the mainstream of
twentieth-century American philosophy. It is a form of pragmatism, of
instrumentalism, which says the test of the true is the good. It adds that this
good is not a social code or some intellectualized Hegelian Absolute. It is
direct everyday experience."
More from the Copleston annotations:
"This is what the MOQ states. Right away it diverges from the absolute idealism
that follows. Quality is a phenomenal reality."
"Ferrier’s philosophy demonstrates how far from some idealism the MOQ is."
"The reason he “knows not why” is that he has abandoned intelligence for
religious conformity. Actually Green is saying things that are very close to
the MOQ and it is angering to see him curtseying in this way to medieval
dogmatic superstition. The selling out of intellectual truth to the social
icons of organized religion is seen by the MOQ as an evil act."
"Either Copleston is summarizing too much or Green’s philosophy is rambling and
disconnected here. This is just a smorgasbord of pleasant platitudes."
"It seems to me that Green’s fashion is not so much non-committal as
half-formed. He pursues the meaning of his terms only insofar as they defend a
stand-pat, status-quo, do-nothing conservatism. When he gets into “spirit” and
“God” and “man’s station in life” we see this motive more clearly."
"If Bradley had stopped here the MOQ would agree. But he didn’t stop there and
the MOQ strongly disagrees that the universal will is the will of the social
organism. Hitler couldn’t have agreed more."
"In this case it is not only not obvious, it is wrong. At this point I see only
evidence that Bradley is advocating a totalitarian society."
dmb continues:
There are points here and there where Pirsig finds some things to agree with,
but the various strains of Absolutism bring with them things like "religious
conformity" "dogmatic superstition", "the selling out of intellectual truth" to
organized religion", "pleasant platitudes", "status-quo, do-nothing
conservatism" and even form of totalitarianism with which "Hilter couldn't have
agreed more". I mean, don't you see that Pirsig not only disagrees
philosophically, he is horrified and disgusted by absolute idealism all along
the way. And yes, James was friends with Royce but James was nauseated by
absolute idealism. And that's pretty much how I feel about it too. Why can't
you just accept the fact that they don't like it? It rubs them in all the wrong
ways. Deal with it.
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
