[MD] John's Reading of Absolute Idealism Confirmed by Bob

[John Carl]

Just finished Pirsig's comments on Coppleston's history of Idealism.  Thanks
Sir Ant.  Is a Knight above or below a Dr in Britain?  Hard to keep these
social categories in line when one single mindedly focuses upon intellectual
values.  Personally, I'd bequeath sainthood for such a worthy and noble
pursuit of sharing information, but then one thing I gleaned from the
reading is the absolute detestation of any terminology smacking of theism,
so I certainly won't be making THAT mistake.
But I must say, the overall piece and the flow were in the same way as has
been discussed here in this forum - a process - a teaching - The immediate
flow of the words and Pirsig's quick-take reactions are annoying at first,
but when he settles down into a thought that seriously attracts him, the
reader "gets it" in a way that is beyond mere passing of information.

Anyway... Pirsig rails against Idealism all the way through.  But Idealism
is a huge warring camp with many factions, and my guy Royce is of the
special faction under the flag of Absolute Idealism.  In Coppleston's
survey, Royce is completely ignored.  Yeah.  Interesting.  Instead of Royce
though, Coppleston Explains Bradley's metaphysical Absolute Idealism and the
process of reading Pirsig's acceptance is amazing.  I just wish He'd have
given some respect to the American side of the pond.  Especially since
Royce's main lifelong dialogue was WITH William James just down the halls.

Here's Pirsig's last words on Absolute Idealism and confirmation to myself
that my instinct in reading Royce as congruent to the MoQ is fully confirmed
by the Professor himself.

Yay me.

Coppleston]

Perhaps what we need is a serious inquiry into the bases of this vision or
initial inspiration, an inquiry which is not dominated by the a priori
assumption that what Bradley speaks of as a presupposition or act of faith
must be devoid of objective value. It is an inquiry which possesses
considerable importance in regard to the foundations of speculative
metaphysics.



RMP]

I think what Copleston is asking for here is precisely what the MOQ
provides. As was stated in ZMM there was a time many years ago when I looked
through the pantheon of philosophers for resemblances to the MOQ. Since
Bradley was always classified as an idealist, it did not seem important to
investigate him thoroughly because the MOQ rejects the metaphysical
assertion that the fundamental reality of the world is idea.

But the description of Bradley as an idealist is completely incorrect.
Bradley’s fundamental assertion is that the reality of the world is
intellectually unknowable, and that defines him as a mystic.

So It has really been a shock to see how close Bradley is to the MOQ. Both
he and the MOQ are expressing what Aldous Huxley called "The Perennial
Philosophy," which is perennial, I believe, because it happens to be true.
Bradley has given an excellent description of what the MOQ calls Dynamic
Quality and an excellent rational justification for its intellectual
acceptance.  It and the MOQ can be spliced together with no difficulty into
a broader explanation of the same thing.

A singular difference is that the MOQ says the Absolute is of value, a point
Bradley may have thought so obvious it didn't need mentioning. The MOQ says
that this value is not a property of the Absolute, it is the Absolute
itself, and is a much better name for the Absolute than "Absolute."
Rhetorically, the word "absolute" conveys nothing except rigidity and
permanence and authoritarianism and remoteness.  "Quality," on the other
hand conveys flexibility, impermanence, here-and-now-ness and freedom.  And
it is a word everyone knows and loves and understands—even butcher shops
that take pride in their product.   Beyond that the term, “value,” paves the
way for an explanation of evolution that did not occur to Bradley.  He
apparently avoided discussing the world of appearances except to emphasize
the need to transcend it.  The MOQ returns to this world of appearances and
shows how to understand these appearances in a more constructive way.

Yay Bob.