as an aside I did not write "sunday teacher', but wrote something like 'gives bible classes in his free time.
Its better to avoid the sunday stance as it has a negative connotation, like its a form of amateurism,etc...and! i do not want to declare Auxier an amateur. Adrie 2016-02-12 20:54 GMT+01:00 John Carl <[email protected]>: > Adrie, David and any others interested, > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Adrie Kintziger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > As David argued to Adrie > > > > snip > > > > "It's no accident that those interested in re-animating that kind of > > idealism are motivated by some kind of theism because a revival of this > > idealism sort of entails a revival of the possibility of faith. > > > > Jc: I believe that is correct. The *possibility* of faith. I realize that > can be a slippery slope, for some, because when we're faced with > post-modern critiques of Realism where it's all "merely" possibility, > people are likely to jump for the comforting ship of dogmatic religion. > > I think one thing should be made clear from the outset, philosophical > enquiry (intellect) should ALWAYS be seeking to be as free from > pre-conceptions and especially religion, as possible. Religion is a social > affair, and intellect needs to be relatively objective in these matters. > So there is no place for Religion, IN the MoQ, but by "IN", I mean codified > into the structure. As far as the MoQ is concerned, yes, God is real. So > is the Easter Bunny and so is the atom and so is the Law of Gravity. All > concepts are real and all reality is conceptual, to some extent or > another. > > I However, just because religion is not part of the structure of the MoQ, > doesn't mean that the metaphysics of Quality has nothing to say about > Religion! This is where the last decade's academic anti-theism, has gotten > it all wrong. Resisting social pressure cannot *become* one's religion, or > you've fallen into the trap you thought to avoid. > > dmb:: > > > > > It's easy > > to imagine the desire to rescue one's faith, the desire to make it > > intellectually respectable once again and even to sympathize with that > > desire. But I really don't think it can be done, which is probably why it > > always seems a little desperate or disingenuous. > > > > Jc: What do you mean by "done"? Done to your satisfaction? Or done to > the ends of the earth agreement? What do you deem, done? Perhaps you > mean convinced of your own. But you are a unique individual with unique > needs and history and a conception of God might not "work" for you. So > that conviction would never be done. Rationally, anyway. > > Let me illustrate what I mean. You (or I gues it was Adrie) dug up the > fact that Randy is a sunday school teacher. A fact which obviously > disparages him in your eyes, but what it made me think of is another > reaction I would get if I shared the fact that he's a musician in a > country-rock band that plays in bars and he's a winebibber. Oh, they would > gasp. He obviously has nothing worth saying, he's obviously unfit to be a > teacher of youth. His morals are suspect and he has no self-control. > > I'd say to myself, "that's judging on very narrow and moralistic grounds" > And this is what you and Adrie don't see. You're letting your own > religious beliefs, cloud your philosophical judgement. > > > > dmb: > > > > > I think it's a dead end, > > at least for the foreseeable future......" > > > > > Jc: I agree that arguing for the existence of God is a dead end. If a > person has faith in God, then he'd be stupid to step in between and > interpret. If God is real, let him do his own arguing. > > > > > > > Adrie. > > Sorry for the late response, David,one of the relatives of my wife > suffered > > a stroke in Turkey whilst on a holliday there, and i also had to go to > the > > hospital myself for some mri's and foto's of my knee.But this as an > aside. > > > > It gave me some time to think about your point of view. > > I think you are correct on this field.Allow me to give an example. > > Given the 'gospel 'wich is clearly present in Royce's work,Auxier's field > > of interest,and John's field of interest possibly and probably as well > John > > as > > Randall would like to restrict and restrain our interferences to the > > theological field of Catholisism, thereby avoiding any possible question > > about monotheism > > polytheism,Islam , thora or whatever availiable. > > > > Jc: The religious background of Auxier is Methodism, mine is Seventh-Day > Adventism (whose founder had roots in Methodism) and Royce's family was > Campbellite, which was a minority protestant offshoot. All of these are > fiercely Protestanly anti-Catholic, so I don't know how you get your > assumptions there. Royce and me both became very a-religious when we hit > college, but became fascinated with it as a subject of enquiry in our later > years. I admit a big part of my love of Royce, is that I understand his > language. I get his allusions and his connotations work for me. I'm a > simple guy, compared to the philosophical greats which we discuss here, but > sometimes those who dwell in the high country of the mind, communicate the > contours and the vistas around me. That's when the good stuff enters. > Isn't that why we're all here? > > > Adr: > > > > Needless to say that this > > also would restrict and restrain us only to their(Royce,Auxier,John, the > > pope?)'s field of expertise,an expertise that is apparently shaped and > > polished so to speak, to induce a theistic revival in filosophy again. > > > > > Jc: Well I hope I've addressed this adequately, > > Ad: > > > > This is not strange nor indecent, but of course if one takes the other > > questions in consideration( monotheism/polyth/islam etc, etc...)then you > > are quit wright > > that it is nearly an impossibilty to have the debate as long as the other > > debates remain unsolved;If we cannot define our variables a priori, and > the > > John/Royce/Auxier train only wants to restrain us in the catholic corner. > > Made me think about the variables ahead of us if we should try.....Hmm > > It crosses my mind how Dr Mc Watt carefully defined 'Time' before arguing > > about it in his inquiry into the metaphysiks of Quality guide.So carefull > > !;- > > > > > Jc: Dr. Mc Watt would enjoy Auxier's book then. It's largely held > together by his recurrent theme of Time and Person and the problem of > immediacy. In fact, I think you all would greatly benefit from Auxier's > work. His philosophical roots are deep and meaningful and his > philosophical connections are strong. How many other philosopher's do you > know whose work is reference as authoritative by Hintikka > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaakko_Hintikka>? Randy is no intellectual > lightweight, just because he chooses to teach in a church as well as in a > class room. TOO long! Too Long, academics and people of intelligence have > shunned the halls of religion and look what has come about - religion has > become desperately stupid. I know people at church who are afraid if Isis > and have Trump bumper stickers and yet call themselves loving Christians. > > On second thought, I understand completely why intellectuals have abandoned > religion. It can drive ya crazy. > > > > > > However this does not mean that it offends me or disturbs me;as John > > suggests, it only offends me to go back to the luggage left behind when > the > > Mayflower moored in the America's , or the Halve Maen or the Pilgrim > > fathers. > > This is the wrong luggage.It became a product only , not a message or a > > set of insights., and given the amount of impact it has and had on big > > populations i have to side with Pirsig as he says its a form of mass > > hysterics. > > I think i will be an atheist for life... > > > > > Jc: Some of my best friends and debating partners are atheists. Some have > wavered, some have flip-flopped. It doesn't matter, really, does it? To > anyone else what beliefs or non-beliefs we hold. I get atheism, what I > don't get is this virulent anti-theism, the idea that anybody willing to > entertain the notion of God is an idiot. And I guess I'm addressing dmb > here, mainly, but he obviously has had some kind of bad experience with > theism and just can't get past it. > > > But really, that should have nothing to do with Royce. Royce was certainly > no more of a Theist than James, and not a church-goer either. > > > > > > > > But quit pro quo for what John is proposing , as apparently some unseen > > quality is is emerging in his postings,consistency is back and he made > > major improvements on the field of philosophy and writing about it. > > So i will not advocate to boot out Royce as John is not really demandig > to > > get rid of Ol' William. > > > > > Jc: No. I only saw James as an opponent of Royce because that was the way > the dichotomy was presented. I didn't understand then the movement of > American Philosophy as a whole and how they were partners in this endeavor. > > > > > > Should we , as Irina suggested, keep our religion,out of this debate?;Or > is > > religion to interwoven and twined with idealism or many forms of > philosphy > > in general to leave it aside?. > > > > The last remark should be interesting for John to resolve....but > regardless > > of his lead, i will not take his word for it without delivered > content;-(no > > pun intended). > > > > > > > > Thank you most humbly, Adrie. I appreciate the chance to make my case. I > hope to continue doing so. Till then, I'll leave you all with one somewhat > lengthy quote, to give you a feel for Royce's roots. > > "Royce took Nietzsche very seriously, agreed with him on many points, and > where he took issue with Nietzsche it was the kind of disagreement possible > only for a philosopher who holds his counterpart in the highest respect. > In many ways Royce and Nietzsche were Schopenhauer's two most ungrateful > philosophical offspring, for having internalized the stubborn primacy of > Will, in the world, they each fought with all their might against > Schopenhauer's pessimeistic (or as Nietzsche had it "life-denying" ) > conclusions. ... While it was Nietzsche who proclaimed that a philosophical > system can be true for its creator alone, that all philosophical arguments > are really ad hominem attacks, and that therefore philosophy is a kind of > autobiography veiled in a generalizations and concepts, this perspective is > more quietly and more carefully shared by Royce. There is no final > separation for either thinker between the choices one makes in life and the > philosophy one creates. > > The second teacher, apart from Schopenhauer, shared by Nietzsche and Royce > was Ralph Waldo Emerson. It would reuqire a long inquiry to place this > crucial mutual influence in its proper context. Chat can be said here is > that for every analogy one can find between Royce and Nietzsche, including > the voluntarism, one may find a solid source in Emerson. > > ... The point is thaty understanding how Schopenhauer and Emerson overlap > and how they clash, is not a bad way to think through the relation of > philosophy to life, and interesting picture or Royce emerges from the > effort." > > Auxier, ibid, pg.30. > > > Man, I wish I'd had Randy for a Sunday school teacher instead of > mean-faced Mrs. Todd... > > John > > > > Adrie > > > > > > > > 2016-02-08 1:57 GMT+01:00 John Carl <[email protected]>: > > > > > Adrie and dave, > > > > > > > > > > It is true altogether that we cannot prove that god does not exist, > > hence > > > > he 'does 'exist or to say the least, fallibilism as a postulate (if > > > > accepted) allows > > > > the creator to stay on top of the pyramid. > > > > > > Jc: I understand your fear, but I wonder what place "fear" has in > > > rational inquiry? Perhaps Christianity and Islam have bred such > > > virulent forms of fundamentalist social dominance tactics that any > > > conception of God must be branded as 'evil' immediately and the > > > subject never raised again. At least it seems that is the gist of the > > > arguments you offer against "sunday-school teacher" Randy, and me. > > > > > > I almost understand, such a prejudicial stance, but if we're talking > > > about the actual fact of the historical record then we have to be more > > > honest, intellectually, and if you throw out Royce, you sure have to > > > throw out James, who was certainly more of a church-goer than Josiah > > > was. > > > > > > But honestly, is all that really the point? Royce laid out the proper > > > sphere of religion and philosophy in his Religious Aspect of > > > Philosophy, and right off the bat he makes it clear that these are TWO > > > DIFFERING REALMS. Just as Pirsig made it clear that religion is > > > social and philosophy is intellectual, Royce makes it clear that > > > Philosophy cannot be constrained or beholden to ANY unexamined > > > preconceptions or prejudice. > > > > > > I would remind you all, that being Anti-God is just as pernicious a > > > prejudice as being pro-God. In fact. This can be most plainly > > > observed in the ontology of Ayn Rand, where she explicitly makes moves > > > for no other reason than to exclude God. and as we all know, > > > unconscious metaphysics tend to be bad metaphysics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in this instance,one has to accept,--fallibilism as true, and > > > > fallibilism as a > > > > postulated guarantee not only that we are wrong to deny the creator' > > > > story,.. > > > > but also that we live with the wrong a priori's. > > > > > > > > > > Jc: Ok, but "wrong" does actually imply the ontological status of > > > "right", therefore the assertion of wrong, fundamentally, helps us > > > escape that modern skepticism which begets nothing but nominalism in > > > academic Pragmatism. > > > > > > > > > Ad: > > > > > > > It did not take me much time to find that Royce, indeed is using > > > fallibilism > > > > to maintain the theistic stance. > > > > It took me less then 10 minutes to keep Auxier against the light to > > find > > > out > > > > he gives bible classes in his free time.But using this as an argument > > > > against > > > > John's apparant will to devote him would make this case moot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jc: I consciously choose a Theistic interpretation to my life. It > > > helps me feel happy. What can you do? We all got our weird little > > > quirks. I think the problem has been the exclusive nature of theistic > > > interpreters and this has gotten us all a bad name. You hear any of > > > that "god" talk and right away you think narrow, moralistic, > > > holier-than-thou and all that baggage that has gotten dragged into the > > > dialogue with and about modern Christianity. I hear ya. I don't > > > blame ya. that stuff sickens us all. All I can do is assure you that > > > there are some of us who appreciate the mythic structure of the bible, > > > and observe and influence the communities that collect themselves > > > around those writings. We don't mean anything absolute about it, but > > > as simply another painting hanging in the gallery, we like it. > > > > > > Sorry if that offends you. > > > > > > I will tell you an interesting story that I fully believe. It's by > > > another of my favorite authoris, M. Scott Peck. In it, he tells of his > > > encounters with various people who come to him for help, as a > > > psychotherapist and Psychologist. Many troubled people he as seen, > > > and one thing he has remarked upon over the years is that many times a > > > good christian has come to his office and stayed for the treatment and > > > found help, who has become converted, in the end, to atheism. Also, > > > many atheists have come to him, talked out their troubles, and come > > > over time to a conclusion that there must be some sort of god out > > > there, and a more deeply connected spiritual life. So what's going > > > on? Atheists are converted to Theism and Theists are converted to > > > Atheism, by the same process. How can that be? Isn't one of these > > > more right than the other? > > > > > > Well all I can say is, we need to learn to accept where we are and > > > where each other is as well, without all this judgement and criticism > > > and I know Randall Auxier well enough to assert he would say the same. > > > > > > Ad: > > > > > > > My personal perspective on fallibilism in general is derived from > > logic, > > > if > > > > fallibilism is true,then fallibilism itself is probably wrong. > > > > > > Jc: > > > > > > Oh, you think you're clever, doncha. > > > > > > Well... you are. but within limits. "probably" is "merely" a > > > pejorative term. Change it to "fallibilism 'could' be wrong" and I'd > > > hum that tune right along with ya and harmonize with a mighty > > > resounding DUH. > > > > > > Ad: > > > > > > > However this does not mean that fallibilism is not a genuine and > solid > > > > analytical knife, if handled in skilled hands.Roye apparently > > understood > > > > true/untrue false/correct as 'wrong' and 'mistaken' but if this is > the > > > > case, then the denotation is fighting with the connotation, and ths?e > > > game > > > > becomes a mindfuck.I find it rather strange that he attempted to > > repaint > > > > the mona lisa so to speak. > > > > > > > > > > Jc: I think there is more here to unpack, but the super bowl is on, > > > and I'm gonna go watch more. GO BRONCOS. > > > > > > didn't Lady Gaga do a wonderful job of the national anthem? I think > so. > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > But regardless of these moot-events,David , in your opinion, should i > > > take > > > > the effort to read and study some work of Royce,just for the sake of > > my > > > > knowledge of philosophy, or lack of it? Is there value to discover, > new > > > > insights or things that were left behind to easy? > > > > > > > > Adrie. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-05 16:41 GMT+01:00 david <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Adrie quoted Wikipedia to dispute John's claims: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> "His publication in 1885 of The Religious Aspect of Philosophy > > > >> ...contained a new proof for the existence of God based upon the > > reality > > > >> of > > > >> error. All errors are judged to be erroneous in comparison to some > > total > > > >> truth, Royce argued, and we must either hold ourselves infallible or > > > >> accept > > > >> that even our errors are evidence of a world of truth. Having made > it > > > >> clear > > > >> that idealism depends upon postulates and proceeds hypothetically, > > Royce > > > >> defends the necessity of objective reference of our ideas to a > > universal > > > >> whole within which they belong, for without these postulates, “both > > > >> practical life and the commonest results of theory, from the > simplest > > > >> impressions to the most valuable beliefs, would be for most if not > all > > > of > > > >> us utterly impossible”. (see The Religious Aspect of Philosophy, p. > > > 324)" > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> dmb says: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Since Royce was offering fallibilism as "a new proof for the > existence > > > of > > > >> God" and "the necessity of objective reference of our ideas", his > > > >> fallibilism is very, very different from the fallibilism of > > Pragmatists > > > >> like James and Pirsig. I think it's fair to say that Pirsig is NOT > > > >> offering > > > >> theism or objectivity. James, Dewey, and Pirsig are quite explicit > in > > > >> their > > > >> rejection of SOM and even James, the most religion-friendly of the > > > three, > > > >> wrote his Varieties of Religious Experience in order to DISPUTE the > > > >> religious claims made by Royce. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> From the Stanford Encyclopedia: > > > >> > > > >> "Royce and James had always disagreed deeply concerning the proper > > > >> understanding of religious phenomena in human life. When James > > delivered > > > >> the Gifford Lectures in 1901 and 1902, he directed many arguments > > > against > > > >> Royce's idealism, though he did not there target his friend by name. > > > >> James's lectures, published as The Varieties of Religious > Experience, > > > were > > > >> a popular and academic success . Royce believed that James, who had > > > never > > > >> been regularly affiliated with an established church or religious > > > >> community, had in that work placed too much emphasis on the > > > extraordinary > > > >> religious experiences of extraordinary individuals. Royce's first > > > >> education > > > >> was into a strongly Protestant world view, he always retained a > > respect > > > >> for > > > >> the conventions of organized Christianity, and his writings exhibit > a > > > >> consistent and deep familiarity with Scripture. He sought a > philosophy > > > of > > > >> religion that could help one understand and explain the phenomena of > > > >> ordinary religious faith as experienced by communities of ordinary > > > people. > > > >> There was a deeper difference between them, as well, and it centered > > on > > > a > > > >> metaphysical point. Royce's 1883 insight concerning the Absolute was > > at > > > >> bottom a religious insight. Contrary to the open-ended pluralism and > > > >> pragmatism of James, Royce was convinced that the object and source > of > > > >> religious experience was an actual, infinite, and superhuman being." > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Since Pirsig was suspicious of James for trying to sneak religion in > > > >> through the back door into philosophy, imagine what he'd think of > > > Royce's > > > >> "respect of the conventions of organized Christianity" and his > stance > > > >> "contrary to the open-ended pluralism and pragmatism of James". > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Like I keep saying, trying to make this Idealistic religious fanatic > > > into > > > >> a Pirsigian is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. > > Why, > > > >> why, why does John keep preaching this nonsense against all evidence > > and > > > >> reason? This covert theism is bullshit and cannot be sustained > > without a > > > >> huge dose of dishonesty, or ignorance, or both. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> It's fine if a person insists on being an Idealist, an Absolutist, > or > > a > > > >> advocate of conventional Christianity but it makes no sense to paint > > > >> Pirsig > > > >> or Pragmatism in these colors. The keys concepts of these two > opposed > > > >> views > > > >> will crash into each other like two trains heading in opposite > > > directions. > > > >> It's worse than a pointless waste of time because, frankly, it's so > > > >> obviously stupid. It makes me sad and angry that John is allowed to > > > >> continue raining his bullshit on Pirsig and James. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > parser > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > "finite players > > > play within boundaries. > > > Infinite players > > > play *with* boundaries." > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > parser > > 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 > > > > > > -- > "finite players > play within boundaries. > Infinite players > play *with* boundaries." > 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 > -- parser 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
