Jc quoted Royce:
"...But in its "metaphysical" sense, idealism is a theory as to the nature of
the real world - however we may come to know that nature... it is the
metaphysical and not the epistemological meaning of the term "idealism" that
has been customary in the literature since Hegel. ..A doctrine remains, in
the metaphysical sense, idealistic, if it maintains that the world is, in its
wholeness, and in all of its constituent parts, a world of mind or of spirit."
Jc commented:
Now the key phrase here is "or of spirit" and what THAT means is so broad as to
be a widely-argued phrase of contention. But a case could be made for DQ as
spirit. I realize that you're terrified of theism creeping in via this back
door, but can't you see that if you slam the door shut too tightly against
anything like "spirit" you're in danger of the pitfalls of either Objectivism
or Nominalism? ...The point is, that idealism is about ideals. Quality is an
ideal. If you can't make that leap of logic, then happy chattering.
dmb says:
So Pirsig's Quality is mind or spirit and it's an ideal? That's definitely NOT
what Pirsig says. As I already showed, in fact, Pirsig explicitly denies that
Quality (DQ) is physical or psychical. (The root word of "psychical" is
"psyche," which is a Greek word that means mind or spirit or soul.)
"Pure Experience cannot be called either physical or psychical: it logically
precedes this distinction." LILA, 365
I'm not "terrified of theism creeping in via this back door," but I do object
and so does Pirsig. He tells us that is exactly why he had overlooked William
James, because it looked like he was sneaking God into philosophy, but upon
closer inspection that turns out NOT to be the case. I also object simply
because it would be incorrect - at best. That fact that you persist in this
God-cramming nonsense after seeing all the evidence against it is disingenuous,
dishonest and even a bit sleazy. Even worse, you keep construing the refusal to
go along with your God-cramming as some sort of character flaw or lapse in
logic or whatever.
I think you've demonstrated that you simply don't give a shit what the truth of
the matter is. You'll say anything to turn the MOQ into some kind of theism
regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.
Hey, have you heard? The term "gullible" has been removed from the dictionary.
And if you're too closed-minded to believe that, it's only because you're
terrified of psychologists and strippers who use their real names.
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
