John, On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:51 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan: > > I know nothing of Royce. From the quote you offer, it appears he >> thought it was convenient to regard other folk as independent beings. >> However, it doesn't appear from this reading that he regarded realism >> (and whether or not that is the same as SOM is debatable) as being in >> charge of society. >> >> > J: "In charge of" is tricky when it so often seems that social needs are > in charge of everything these days. > The perpetual social choice of SOM to guide turns society into everything. > SOM is, if you think about it, the reification of social patterns. We > relate to each other as discrete individuals and from this deduce the > absolute reality of subject and object. It's the lowest common denominator > of metaphysics and brings everybody into the same tent. > > But Royce is long-winded and I sometimes cut short the full explanation of > his argumentative points... but since you asked for it ;) > > > > " We find it socially convenient to view the common objects of our human > and social knowledge as independent both of my fellow and myself, even > while we still view these objects as the same for both of us, and for all > other actual and possible human observers. > And so, in the end, we conceive these common objects, abstractly, as > independent of all knowing processes whatever. > > There is a deeper and a very general motive at the heart of Realism,--a > motive which we shall only later learn to appreciate. This is the interest > in viewing the Real as the absolutely and finally Determinate or Individual > fact. But this motive is present for Realism in a very abstract and > problematic form. And even this motive, as we shall later see, is a > practical one. We believe in the determinate individuality of things > because we need and love individuality. We can justify this belief, in the > end, only upon other than realistic grounds.
Dan: It is interesting that he equates individual facts and individuality as the foundation of Realism while at the same time saying that is only justified on other than realistic grounds, on practicality, in other words. > > In consequence we may say that Realism is, in its special contrast with > other views, an interpretation of the folk-lore of being in the interests > of a social conservatism. > Accordingly, in the history of thought, Realism is the metaphysic of the > party of good order, when good order is viewed merely as something to be > preserved. > Hence the typical conservatives, the extreme Right wing of any elaborate > social order, will generally be realistic in their metaphysics. So too are > the conservative theologians, so long as they teach the people. Amongst > themselves, these conservatives, if deeply religious souls, may use quite > other, namely, mystical speech. Realistic, too, are those plain men, whose > only metaphysic is the blind belief in "established facts." Realistic also > are the tyrants. Realism has lighted the fires for the martyrs, and has set > up the scaffolds for the reformers. As to its most familiar cases of real > objects, Realism is fond of socially important objects. Property in > general, technical objects, money, mechanism, instruments, whatever can be > passed from hand to hand, the solid earth on which we all alike appear to > walk,--these are the typical and exemplary instances of realistic > metaphysics. Dan: The way I read this, Realism is stuck in the notion of objectivity. Note how he says society is fond of socially important OBJECTS. This is where the MOQ differs in that socially important VALUES are those of celebrity force. > If you question Realism, the realist asks you whether you do > not believe in these objects, as facts independent of your ideas. With > these instances, then, the realist is ready to confute the objector. The > realist is fond of insisting upon the "sanity" of his views. By sanity he > means social convenience. Now reflective thinking is often socially > inconvenient. When it is, the realist loves to talk of "wholesome" belief > in reality, and to hurl pathological epithets at opponents. It is thus > often amusing to find the same thinker who declares that reality is quite > independent of all merely human or mental interests, in the next breath > offering as proof of his thesis the practical and interesting > "wholesomeness " of this very conviction." Dan: It appears from this short quote that Royce is describing a sort of double-bind, a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario that the realist might use to confirm their belief. On the other hand, he seems to be describing reflective thinking as a sort of intellectual value that is opposed to social values, or at least inconvenient to them. To think for oneself is a kind of insanity seen from the social point of view. Interesting. > > > > > Dan: > > > >> I think Robert Pirsig makes the same point in Lila. > > However, I think >> he uses the term subject/object metaphysics much more broadly as a >> collection of intellectual quality patterns representative of a >> reality composed only of subjects and objects. >> >> > J: yes, and as a special point of interest, the independence of subjects > and objects. The mind is completely separate from it's object, according > to SOM. Value being "merely" in your head. > > > > Dan: > >> I think every person on earth has both good qualities and bad >> qualities. For the most part, the good generally outweighs the bad but >> not always. >> >> Dan: >> Everything we discuss here is static quality. >> >> > J: But sometimes we get good ideas which add to our quality constructs. > It takes a diversity of blind men to get a good picture of an elephant. > With just one guy, it's probably gonna be described as simply a rope and > anybody arguing differently will be told "you don't understand the MOQ". Dan: I never meant to insinuate that there is just one person here who has a good grasp on the MOQ. There are many. I could name names but I think we all know who they are. I picked Ham and Dave as two contrasting contributors who had responded directly to your posts. >> > > >> J: I've enjoyed a lively dialog with Ham. I don't understand why a >> discussion of Quality (Caring) should be so demonizing and rancorous. >> That's a mystery I'd like to understand. But then I don't know why > Marsha >> was so hated either. You either respect another person's words enough to >> take them seriously or you don't. Why get mad about it? > > Dan: >> I'm not mad and I don't hate anyone. As I stated before, I was all for >> giving Marsha the benefit of the doubt. I like Marsha. I always have. >> She did have an irritating way of luring people into a discussion only >> to pull the rug out from under them, however. She wasn't called Lucy >> for nothing. >> > > J: I don't think being a lucy is an insult - charlie brown is the stupid > guy who keeps going for the ball. > At least in the strip charlie brown didn't get up yelling at Lucy - "you > did it again!" He just lay there looking up at the sky and blaming his own > gullibility. Dan: It always seemed to me that Charlie Brown just loved the game and Lucy took advantage of that. And I'm sure anyone taken in by Marsha's antics thought the same thing: they blamed their own gullibility. But unlike the comic strip, people finally wised up and quit talking to her. They gave up kicking the football and walked away. The game wasn't any fun. People stopped participating in it. The discussion group began to fizzle out. Then someone came along, took the football away from Lucy, and all of a sudden the game was fun again. Lucy was left on the sidelines watching and wondering what happened to cause her to be excluded. Now, who is to blame? Charlie Brown, or Lucy? > > > Dan: > > >> I merely mentioned that him (Ham) agreeing with you is not necessarily a >> good thing IF you are genuinely interested in (learning about) the >> MOQ. By comparing his contributions to Dave Buchanan's, I had hoped to >> show the difference between someone who knows what they're talking >> about and someone who doesn't. I apologize if that bothers you. >> >> If you already know everything about the MOQ, then that's fine too. >> I'm more than happy to drop it. Know any good stories? >> >> > > Yes. There's a big one that's been fermenting for a long time. Since you > ask, I'll tell. I'll start it anyway... Sounds good. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
