John to All:
But I see my way clear now to a masterly thesis. I'ce got three
paragraphs already circled in Randy's book that I KNOW are MoQ orthodox,
and while I can't sell anyone on the idea that Royce co responds with
Pirsig, (even tho they never once corresponded at all) I'm thinking I
bet I could interest the Royceans in the same fact. So far I haven't
been able to sell it, because it's just my word for what the MoQ
actually says. And even I admit I'm no expert.
Andre:
No expert on the MoQ John? Well, you've always maintained to understand
it well. So you want to keep on pushing Royce down the MoQ layers?
May we all be reminded of John's letter to Horse more or less pleading
to be re-admitted to the MD:
On September 16, 2013 John wrote:
Greetings MD Pirsigians, I've missed you all. The reasoning behind my
resignation from MD was valid, but has changed and I'd like a chance to
explain in detail, if you don't mind. The main reason at the time I
left, was escaping the conflict that came from my pushing of the Roycean
idea of an absolute.
Andre:
Yes?
John continues:
I really like Royce, and didn't want to lose him, so I clung to the idea
that the "Q" in "moQ" was a sign of absolutism.
Andre:
Yes? And you found out that there are no absolutes in the MoQ
perspective...so NO to Royce.
John continues:
I believe the MoQ orthodoxy is opposed to that idea, to such an extent
that it's too destructive to hammer away at an unsolvable problem. So it
seemed that resignation, was called for.
Andre:
Right, so you resigned and were not dismissed by Horse or anyone else.
It seems you were also not invited to reappear by Horse or anyone else
(see below). Quite simply because your adherence to the Roycean idea of
an absolute is incompatible with Pirsig's MoQ...with the idea of Quality.
John continues:
In that time, I've gotten more educated on the subject, and even
attended a conference just lately, in my home town, on Royce, where the
president of the Royce society made the argument that he found the idea
of an absolute "block universe" logically unsupportable and yet
considers himself a Roycean. There was sharp conflict, on this subject,
but much applause too. I realized then and there, the quality of the
mistake I had made. And realized I'd been wrong, and it was right that I
was rebuked and criticized so harshly by Andre, Adrie and DMB.
Andre:
Nice to hear.
John continues:
Some day I hope to rejoin a dialogue with you again, and ask to
rejoin, [!!!] but first there is a book I've been dying to read, that I
hope will fill in all the missing pieces, Sprigge's James and Bradley.
i'm also greatly enjoying the Varieties of Religious Experience and find
it funny that I've finally gotten to James .... through Royce!
Andre:
So here you are again John, pushing Royce saying: 'But I don't see it as
my mission to persuade anybody over here, that I'm write - espectially
dmb and Andre. We've argued it out so much that sides are hardened
beyond rationality. There's no reason to go on and on about it.'
So why go on and on about it John? Want to 'interest the Royceans' as
you suggest (despite the fact that you 'have not been able to sell it'
[I wonder why???]) above or you want to impress the MoQ adherents? YOU
know where to go 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
