[MD] The question WHY?

[John Carl]

To really unpack this section of Copleston the commentator, we'd have to
have the philosophy he was commenting on at the time.  And no, I can't see
plugging "God" into a logical equivalent of the Absolute.   It all depends
upon what you mean by "God" and how you develop the philosophical
"Absolute".

I agree with RMP that the argument presented is not convincing, but then,
straw men usually are not convincing.

To keep it as simple and free of tangles as possible, how do you like my
assertion that Quality is not God, Quality creates God?

Never mind.  I know the answer.

John



On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:13 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> John,
>
>
>
> Copleston:  The very denial of an absolute intelligence in us could have no
> meaning but for a tacit appeal to its presence. An implicit knowledge of
> God
> in this sense is proved by the very attempt to deny it.'
>
> RMP:  This is casuistry.  If you deny knowing anything about rutabagas in
> Russia, does the fact that you are denying it prove that you really do know
> something about rutabagas in Russia?
>      (Copleston)
>
>
> Plug in 'absolute' or 'God' for 'rutabagas in Russia'.  Is there a problem
> with RMP's logic and calling this technique casuistry?  Regardless what
> Platt said to me, I do not remember ever stating that there were
> 'absolutely' no absolutes. I might have made a general statement that there
> were no absolutes, but not a categorical statement.  I did say that I
> thought 'absolutes' to be any empty category.
>
> Did I get my words tangled?
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:49 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The question WHY?
>
> Salutations, Ham:
>
>
>
> >> Sorry for only responding to the parts of your posts that I prefer
> >> ... but them's the rules.
> >>
> >
> > Who's rules?  Yours?
>
>
> No, yours.  Ours.  Life's.  As  valuing agents reality is formed from what
> we prefer, isn't that the essence of the MoQ?
>
>
> >
> >  Interesting observation.  How many dialectics have we witnessed
> >> that are geared to resolving questions?
> >> As opposed to trying to convert.
> >>
> >
> > Good question.  I for one would like to witness more of the former.
> >
>
>
> Well there's one easy way to witness more resolution, and that's to create
> more resolution.  I'm willing, you're willing.  It shouldn't be difficult.
>
>
> >>
> > I don't follow Royce's logic.  I know that he is an "absolutist".  But
> how
> > does the supposition that there is no "absolute experience" constitute an
> > "absolute whole"?  How does the "effort to deny absolute experience"
> involve
> > "the assertion of" it?  Does he mean only that we can't deny something
> > without imagining its existence? I accept that as a rhetorical or
> > intellectual premise, but not as an experiential principle.  Perhaps you
> can
> > explain the argument Royce is trying to make...and, while you're at it,
> what
> > you mean by the following:
> >
> >
>
> >  And the absolute that is chosen unconsciously in such
> >> cases of overt denial of an absolute, is the self - the subject of SOM.
> >> Too bad that unconscious metaphysics tend to be bad metaphysics.
> >>
> >
> >
>
> Ok, I don't always follow Royce's logic either.  It can be twisty at times,
> but worthwhile.  The above was a summary of his thinking by others so a bit
> is lost in translation.  Lemme give it another shot in his exact words, and
> then I'll try and explain it fully in my own:
>
>
> "If every reality has to exist just in so far as there is experience of its
> existence, then the determination of the world of experience to be this
> world and no other, the fact that reality contains no other facts than
> these, is, as the supposed final reality, itself the object of one
> experience, for which the fragmentariness of the finite world appear as a
> presented and absolute fact, beyond which no reality is to be viewed as
> even
> genuinely possible.  For this final experience, the conception of any
> possible experience beyond is known as an ungrounded conception, as an
> actual impossibility.  But so, this final experience is by hypothesis
> forthwith defined as One, as all inclusive, as determined by nothing
>  beyond
> itself, as assured of the complete fulfillment of its own ideas concerning
> what is,-- in brief, it becomes as absolute experience.  The very effort to
> deny an absolute experience involves, then, the actual assertion of such an
> absolute experience."
>
> The Conception of God, pg 43
>
> John]
>
> Ok the best way to sum this up, I think, is that when you say "there are no
> absolutes" is itself an absolute.  I think Platt said that to Marsha
> already, so no great insight, but a bit deeper explication by JR, and tying
> the absolute to experience.    "Absolute Experience"  seems to me to be an
> adequate meeting point between you and Platt.  You with your essense, him
> with his experience.
>
> What I meant by the statement of "unconscious metaphysics tend to be bad"
> is
> the problem which stems from absolute relativism is that the self is then
> taken as the absolute basis of being - which you point out below as being a
> problem.
>
>
>
>
> > To be clear, I define conscious experience as the awareness of the
> > individual.  No finite entity, nothing locked in a space/time framework,
> can
> > be absolute.  This is what relates consciousness to a unique organic
> being
> > and makes the self a free agent.  If you're suggesting that the self is
> > absolute (within itself) -- in other words, that it is an integral whole
> --
> >  you would be misusing the term "absolute".  By definition only Essence,
> the
> > Primary Source, is absolute.  No individual entity or created thing is
> > absolute, not even the infinite universe.
> >
> >
> The relation of the Absolute Experience and the Individual Experience is
> also unpacked in Royce's writing, but we'll stick to one thing at a time.
>  I
> did find an interesting bit in my skimming this morning  about the relation
> of dynamic and static within the Absolute that seemed very Pirsigian to me.
>
>
> So many thoughts!  So little time.
>
> Yours,
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>