John said to Andre:
> From Time, Will and Purpose:
>
> "The development of external boldness, decisiveness, cleverness, and
> all the virtues praised by "mock eloquent cant" of the euphoric masses is
> meaningless without the firm association of these virtues with excellent
> reflection upon our experience, and such reflection begins with the idea
> that *we could always be in error.* This is Royce's *fallibillism*.
> The fact that it has not been recognized in the literature on both Royce
> and Royce's commitment to fallibilism simply boggle my mind. What could be
> more obvious? And yet, supposedly intelligent people charge Royce with
> Absolutism, in the very sense contradicted by his argument from error?"
>
> Auxier, 68
>
> It was at the August conference that I learned that Royce was no Absolutist
> and it was that insight which caused me to admit my error in pushing
> absolutism here at MD. The Absolute I repented of. Royce, never.
dmb says:
Um, I think you're confusing epistemology with ontology. When Absolutism is
contrasted with fallibilism, we're talking about the nature of truth. But
Absolutism idealism is a position on what kinds of things exist and is
contrasted with realism. And almost every living philosopher today, more than
90%, is a fallibilist of some kind. I doubt that 90 something percent of
philosopher agree on anything else.
Idealism was basically invented by Bishop Berkeley to oppose the new scientific
realism and empiricism, which he felt would lead to atheism. His idealism is,
in effect, an argument in favor of God. Hegel's Absolute was such a God too.
Royce and your Methodist friend are also following in this quasi-theological
vein. And this is a big problem if your notion is to turn Pirsig's DQ into one
of these abstract Gods. Philosophical mysticism is fundamentally from Absolute
idealism and theology, just as pragmatic truth is fundamentally different from
objective, fixed or eternal truth.
I really don't see how you're doing anything except pushing God. And you're
apparently quite oblivious to the basic categories. I mean, what you're saying
just doesn't make much sense.
You can believe whatever you like, John. But why oh why do you feel the need to
vandalize Pirsig's work? He has made his position on theism quite clear and so
there is no way you're being intellectually honest about this. A lot of it is
just confusion, I suppose, but your willingness to distort and blur and
rearrange Pirsig is downright disturbing.
Seriously, dude. There's something really wrong with this.
Don't you care that Pirsig repeatedly says it's evil. Evil. Not just incorrect
but immoral. Are you so fanatically committed that you can't see the words put
before your eyes? The amount of criticism you've ignored or sidestepped since
your return could fill a small book. It's like you're trying to inspire
disrespect and contempt.
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
