Jc said:
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. ...and its in actual practice that the MoQ is a form of
Idealism.
dmb says:
Yea, this is pretty typical of the way you operate. First, suggest that
stupidity is the reason "some" people have for rejecting the idealist's concept
of "spirit" and then say something really ignorant about that very concept. The
"spirit" in question is an all-encompassing mind. It's a metaphysical monism
and does not even remotely resemble Pirsig's ghosts. If that were the case,
then concepts like the law of gravity is equivalent to God or the Absolute.
Your comparison is complete nonsense. And, as usual, you've completely ignored
the evidence. That response is wildly dishonest and it makes no sense. As I
already showed, Pirsig explicitly denies that Quality is physical or mental.
"Pure Experience cannot be called either physical or psychical: it logically
precedes this distinction." In ZAMM Pirsig tells us that his Quality is NOT
like Hegel's Absolute and he tells us why. But, like I said, you simply don't
give a damn about what's true and what's not. That is the philosop
hical definition of "bullshit".
Yea, maybe I should re-examine my prejudices against nonsense and bullshit. And
my arbitrary demands for evidence and reasons could turn out to be a big
problem for me, both professionally and personally. What was I thinking? So
sorry.
Jc said:
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.
dmb says:
That is just an evasion. The issue is not whether or not the concept of God is
pragmatically useful. It's about your willingness to ignore what Pirsig has
actually said about Hegel, Idealism, theism, and God. You ignore the evidence
and just proceed with your God-cramming idealism anyway. That is morally
outrageous, John, and just plain wrong. Your conversational behavior is fully
worthy of contempt and I'm certainly not going to be bullied into silence about
that. You're really being quite an asshole about it.
Jc said:
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!
dmb says:
This is just another bullshit evasion. What difference does it make if the man
went to church or not? That historical fact is that Royce and the other
Idealist of his day were talking about God as the center of their idealism. All
of them were like that. It's crypto-theology we get from Berkeley, Hegel and
Royce. Is it funny that you're willing to be so bullshitty on the topic of God,
or just sad? I'm really not sure.
I sure hope Horse isn't persuaded by your empty promises next time you
apologize and vow to stop being a troll.
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
