[MD] Royce's Evolutionary Insight

[mark_maxwell at talktalk.net]

Hi John,

Feel like i'm making progress, but...

squonk prev: The metaphysics at work here would seem to suggest that the Absolute is perfect and a priori in a conceptual sense (a-spatio-temporal, undifferentiated): 'it is'.

Within this is a dialectic between imperfections?and less imperfections (the 'goods' that have triumphed) 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.

squonk prev: So, differentiation itself may be regarded as an imperfection which volution 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.


squonk: I'll restate this:

1. Joyce's Absolute Monism exists prior to differentiated notions of it.

2. Differentiated notions of it are imperfect.

3. Differentiated notions are becoming more perfect in an evolutionary process.

4. If this process continues then differentiation itself may cease with the process itself (maybe not).



Is this a little closer?



All the best,

squonk


squonk: I'll restate this:

1. Joyce's Absolute Monism exists prior to differentiated notions of it.

2. Differentiated notions of it are imperfect.

3. Differentiated notions are becoming more perfect in an evolutionary process.

4. If this process continues then differentiation itself may cease with the process itself (maybe not).



Is this a little closer?



All the best,

squonk