Ant,
The Moving finger types; and having writ, moves on. Nor all they piety nor all thy wit shall lure it back not even to cancel half a line nor all thy tears wash out a word of it. -- thanks to Omar I note below your heads-up on removing the Copleston Annotations. I have found them invaluable in my own personal intellectual seekings and thank you sincerely for posting them. I understand your reasons for removing them and don't feel too bad for myself - I've downloaded it long before this, ever since I noted a certain irregularity of availability and treasure them for exactly what they are - a rough primer on the gut reactions of the author of the MoQ, to what Frederik Copleston had to say about British Idealism. > John Carl then replied to Ant McWatt, Feb 5th 2014: > > That little section alone would hardly qualify as an unqualified > endorsement of Bradley but when taken in the context of most of his > commentary in the Annotations I find it significant. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > John, > > Firstly, it's always good to hear that people are using the resources at > robertpirsig.org AND using them in an intelligent way. > > Anyway, I thought I better "jump in" and issue a "caveat" about Pirsig's > comments in the Copleston Annotations before anyone got too carried by his > comments there i.e. he never read most of the primnary sources that > Copleston is referring to. Moreover, it's the only document at > robertpirsig.org that he would have re-written or edited as it was > originally written just to assist me in my PhD work and was originally not > meant for the wider world. > > J: Let me amplify on my earlier statement Ant. I said the context is significant. Pirsig said in ZAMM - if anybody else had asked the question it wouldn't have been a big deal. But when HE asked the question it blew up into a huge thing. So even tho the CA's are the mere instictual reactions, they're from a man whose got awful damn good instinctual reactions. Ant: > > [John then quoted Bob Pirsig's lengthy comment about Bradley found at the > end of the Copleston annotations: http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm ] > > John: And now he's gonna do some more ;) Because I mentioned the context I feel I should show it: Copleston talking about Bradley: For the philosopher is clearly a man who is possessed by the idea of the Absolute, of a completely self-consistent and all-inclusive whole. And it is easy to understand how his philosophy has been able to arouse the interest of Indian thinkers who have not abandoned the native traditions of Hindu speculation, and of some Western philosophers who have an initial sympathy with this line of speculation. For there is at any rate some affinity between Bradley's theory of speculation and the Indian doctrine of Maya, the phenomenal world which veils the one true reality. Not just affinity, but identity. John: This conclusion was based upon Coplstn's interpretation, but it immediately perks up Pirsig - it's got that certain smell - CA: Obviously, both Bradley and the Indian philosophers in question are faced with the same difficulty, namely that every concept which we can form of ultimate reality must itself belong to the sphere of appearance. But their initial 'visions' are similar, and it is a vision which can exercise a powerful attraction on some minds. J: That's an interesting statement, right there. "some minds?" Is there some special kind of mind you have to have to think about this? Isn't rational logic the same for everybody? Evidently not. CA: Perhaps what we need is a serious inquiry into the bases of this vision or initial inspiration, an inquiry which is not dominated by the a priori assumption that what Bradley speaks of as a presupposition or act of faith must be devoid of objective value. It is an inquiry which possesses considerable importance in regard to the foundations of speculative metaphysics. I think what Copleston is asking for here is precisely what the MOQ provides. J: I agree. I don't see Bradley as key to understanding Pirsig - I see Pirsig as key to understanding Bradley. This search for a solution, this quest that philosophy has been going through... the MoQ provides. The next quote with Pirsig seeming to support the idea of an Absolute, is actually Pirsig trying to translate the underlying meaning for what those philosophers were talking about. I believe this is a significant change in my reading of the passage and it came about in an interesting way but we'll skip that for now. > > John's Royce Quote: > > "The book is itself a very elaborate argumentative structure. One ought not > to make light of it by chance quotations. One cannot easily summarize its > well-wrought reasonings in a few sentences. To discuss it carefully would > have been wholly impossible in a general course of lectures." > > Stuff like that I'd definitely find a favorite interpreter to do some > philosophological work for me. I've got T.L.S Sprigge's James and > Bradley on order from Amazon and hope to gain insight from that. > Especially since Sprigge claims that both men solve the other's biggest > problems. My interest is piqued by the fact that Pirsig spoke highly of > both - James extensively of course, and Bradley in passing. > > > Ant concludes: Too true John. As Royce and myself observed, Bradly isn't > the > easiest reads but I'm still intrigued that Timothy Sprigge (a modern > pragmatist based in the UK - a rare bird) related William James and > Bradley. This text would almost help someone trying to relate the MOQ with > Bradley's metaphysics and could make for a worthwhile Masters or, largely > thanks to Bradley's obscure rhetoric, PhD project. > > J: I 'm very fond of Sprigge ever since I ran across a paper of his on animals as part of man's community of interpretation. I don't understand why the book on James and Bradley is taking so long to get here. I ordered it weeks ago. Ant: > Finally, as an aside, Timothy Sprigge nearly became the external examiner > for my MOQ PhD. (I can't remember why he didn't in the end but David E. > Cooper who did is definitely worth reading too. For instance, he's written > one of the few Western Philosophy texts about gardens! For anyone > interested in the latter subject, please check out the description of > Cooper's "Philosophy of Gardens" book below.) > > > Wow, that's incredible. Really. My wife and I have been seeing a marital therapist for a year. Usually that sounds ominous but really we have a great marriage it's just the normal bumps and grinds of any 25 year marriage, but having a third person is really helpful. Anyway, we're going through this list of questions we answered when we first started going 11 mos ago and we got to #17 about where we hoped we'd be in 10 years and I said I wanted to be living in my garden, having written a book about gardening. This delighted the Dr. as he came out with David Cooper's name and recommended him and now you. I guess I'm meant to read that book. One of my biggest differences with the Deep Ecology movement is the point mentioned below: "that environmental philosophy should not focus only on 'wilderness' to the exclusion of the humanly shaped environment." I've postulated Zen's influence on the environmental movement as the basis of that problem. I gotta get that book. Very nice chatting with you, Ant. John ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "A Philosophy of Gardens" by David E. Cooper > > Why do gardens matter so much and mean so much to people? That is the > intriguing question to which David Cooper seeks an answer in this book. > Given the enthusiasm for gardens in human civilization ancient and > modern, Eastern and Western, it is surprising that the question has been > so long neglected by modern philosophy. Now at last there is a > philosophy of gardens. > > Not only is this a fascinating subject in its own > right, it also provides a reminder that the subject-matter of > aesthetics is broader than the fine arts; that ethics is not just about > moral issues but about 'the good life'; and that environmental > philosophy should not focus only on 'wilderness' to the exclusion of the > humanly shaped environment. > > David Cooper identifies garden appreciation as a special human phenomenon > distinct from both from the appreciation of art and the appreciation of > nature. He explores the importance of various 'garden-practices' and shows > how not only gardening itself, but activities to which the garden > especially lends itself, including social and meditative activities, > contribute to the good life. And he distinguishes the many kinds of > meanings that gardens may have, from representation of nature to emotional > expression, from historical > significance to symbolization of a spiritual relationship to the world. > > Building on the familiar observation that, among human beings' > creations, the garden is peculiarly dependent on the co-operation of > nature, Cooper argues that the garden matters as an epiphany of an > intimate co-dependence between human creative activity in the world and > the 'mystery' that allows there to be a world for them at all. A > Philosophy of Gardens will open up this subject to students and scholars > of aesthetics, ethics, and cultural and environmental studies, and to > anyone with a reflective interest in things horticultural. > > > > http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Philosophy-Gardens-David-E-Cooper/9780199238880?b=-3&t=-20&Fulldescription-20 > 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
