dmb: dmb says: > > > So Pirsig's Quality is mind or spirit and it's an ideal? That's definitely > NOT what Pirsig says.
Jc: I realize "spirit" is a hard concept to swallow for some. Try and think of it in terms of "ghost" as Pirsig used that word in ZAMM. The ghost of reason is in every sense, the spirit of reason. Something that has no material essence, but exists anyway. The Good, is an ideal. When we think about doing good, we have an idealistic purpose in mind. You could say that we are chasing a ghost, or you could say that we are pursuing a spirit or you could say we are holding on to an ideal. All these are equivalent in actual practice and its in actual practice that the MoQ is a form of Idealism. > 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. Funny how that happens. Often it is that our prejudices block our method of inquiry. Pirsig is a top-notch thinker who is capable of re-examining his prejudices. I advise you to follow his example. > 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. > > God is a concept that some find useful, and some do not. Whether or not you find the conceptualization of God pragmatically useful, personally, should not preclude the intellectual considerations of metaphysical stances by thinkers who DO find such conceptualization useful. I should think this would be obvious to any real student of W. James. And your prejudice against Royce as "religious" is just ridiculous. He didn't belong to any religion and he never attended church - this in an age when such behavior could get you socially ostracized! > > 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. > Your name-calling and inflammatory rhetoric don't really advance your cause. When we started out this disputation you claimed that I was academically ignorant and incapable of playing on the field with the big boys. Now that I've got some academical back-up, you're reduced to insults. Those who reject what Royce said, don't understand James because much of what James said, his philosophical moves, were in response to Royce (and especially Howison). Consideration of opposing sides, is what makes for good philosophy for philosophy is not simply individualistic intellectual exercise but always an ongoing dialogue of some kind. Your rejection of criticism doesn't harm me in the least, but it does great damage to you. 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
