[MD] Royce's Evolutionary Insight

[John Carl]

Hello Mark/squonk,

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:51 AM, <mark_maxwell at talktalk.net> wrote:

squonk: It seems to me that Joyce may assume that all process are Historic?
>
> Causation and mechanics attempt to explain process, but that which 'has'
> undergone?process?(historic) are?contemplated?by?a mind which may not
> conform to causal or mechanistic process itself. Joyce explains the mental
> contemplation of the historic to be valued for its unifying aesthetic?
>
> ?
>

Yes... Peppered indeed with "?".  I'm in a rush this morning, so I can't
explain much at length, but...



>
> >From the sparse details of Royce that i have recently read (thanks to your
> mention of him) and your own,?i suspect Joyce feels there is some aspect
> here which is doing the valuing - evaluating, and this may be his Absolute
> Monism.
>
>
is pretty darn close.  Royce calls it "Absolute Thought", of which we are
expressions.  That is, Royce's Absolute is not separate from us or our
participation.



>
> If this is so, then the evolutionary struggle he discusses may have a
> teleology of ideals toward which the evolutionary process is progressing,
> and ultimately, an Absolute ideal toward which the evolutionary process is
> progressing.
>
>
yes, I think.  I will think more on this today.  I got a painting job today.
 yay.


> ?
>
> I find this interesting, because Absolute ideals are very often
> perfections, and i feel perfection may be synonimous with Quality.



You and me both.


> Joyce's Absolute Idealism appears to suggest a progressive aspect
> (evolution) which further suggests that imperfections, (that which may be
> regarded as evil and is progressively bannished in the evolutionary process)
> may form part of a dialectical process within the Monism - and so we may
> have a Joycean Dialectical Monism.
>
>
 you've got it exactly right according to my most recent reading.  Have you
been peeking?



> ?
>
> The metaphysics at work here would seem to suggest that the Absolute is
> perfect (Quality?) and a priori in a conceptual sense (non-spatio-temporal -
> non-differentiated)?- that is, 'it is'. Within this is a dialectic between
> imperfections and less imperfections (the 'goods' that have triuphent) which
> evolve toward the Absolute?
>


Ok, a little lost.  I will say that Royce's metaphysical journey arises out
of skepticism (his early Schopenhauer days) that evolves toward an absolute
through a dialectic process that stems from the question "what is error?"

An examination of the metaphysical foundation needed for the existence of
error, brings about Royce's monism, even as the question of "what is
Quality" brought Pirsig to the same thing.


> Further, the dialectic is moral, evaluative because the dialectic is being
> valued in Absolute terms.
>
> So, differentiation itself may be regarded as an imperfection which
> evolution is bannishing?
>
>
No, I'd disagree there.  Royce sees the transcendant value arising from
realization of differentiation, and thus differentiation is not an
"imperfection" but a part of the process of perfecting.

There is evil, and Royce spends a deal of time dealing with it.  His belief
is that the Absolute is perfection in the ongoing process of overcoming
evil.  But this evil is not the same as differentiation.



> ?
>
> A bit of a ramble this, but i like to ramble.
>
>

You and me both, bro.  Out the door I am...