[MD] CA 2

[John Carl]

John:

Ok, I said I believe it's an infinite process.  Infinite processes don't
mind taking time to develop.  The goal is, to get through the whole thing
eventually.


Cop:

The idealist metaphysics was thus a spiritualist metaphysics, in the sense
that for it ultimate reality was in some sense spiritual. And it follows
that idealism was sharply opposed to materialism.

RMP:

The MOQ is not opposed to materialism as long is it is understood that
materialism is a set of ideas.

John:

You gotta love the guy.  Look at him dodge and weave!  What a complicated
tour-de-force!

As before, materialism is certainly NOT held to be a set of ideas.  At least
not by materialists.

Cop:

In so far indeed as the phenomenalists tried to go beyond the dispute
between materialism and spiritualism by reducing both minds and physical
objects to phenomena which cannot properly be described either as spiritual
or as material, we cannot legitimately call them materialists. But these
phenomena were evidently something very different from the one spiritual
reality of the idealists. And in any case we have seen that on the more
positivistic side of the empiricist movement there appeared an at least
methodological materialism, the so-called scientific materialism, a line of
thought for which the idealists had no sympathy.


RMP"

If the Quantum theory can be called scientifically materialistic, then the
MOQ supports scientific materialism.

John:

Oh.  We've already covered this, haven't we.  Mistake then.

What do we do with mistakes?

Deal with them.

Ok, question one.  Can Quantum theory be called scientifically
materialistic?  I count the votes.  The MD says "no".  So therefore, this is
a set-up sorta deal.  The MoQ certainly does not support scientific
materialism.  SOM supports scientific materialism, and while SOM is the
dominant paradigm, as an intellectual pattern it is the enemy and antithesis
of the MoQ, so OBVIOUSLY, the MoQ cannot suppport scientific materialism.
What is basic premise #1 of scientific materialism?  That Value is
subjective.

Ok, so let's move on, with the realization that RMP is being very cagey for
some reason.  Perhaps the future will reveal all

Cop:

With its emphasis on the spiritual character of ultimate reality and on the
relation between the finite spirit and infinite Spirit idealism stood for a
religious outlook as against materialistic positivism and the tendency of
empiricism in general to by-pass religious problems or to leave room, at
best for a somewhat vague agnosticism.

John:

Ok.  We get down to the big bug-a-boo, eh?  Theism.  Idealism allows the
possibility of theistic philosophy.  Therefore it must be rejected at all
cost.  I mean, we've suffered under the constraints of theistic philosophy
for millinia.  Its time for intellect to break free.  That's why Idealism
must go.  Never mind that some practitioners and theorists are actually
agnostic, or even atheistic, the fact is, that if Theism gains any toehold
in the Academy, it will be through Idealism, and thus Idealism must be
suppressed at all costs.

This is interesting to Pirsigians, because it reveals an underlying motive
for the rejection of the MoQ by the Academy.  If the MoQ has any sort of
Idealistic overtones, it could lead to that dreaded Theism creeping back in
and then we'll have a buncha fundamentalist yahoos up our ass over the age
of the earth and whether joshua ben nun really did stop the earth's rotation
for trivial purposes. .. There's a pragmatic need for this stance.


RMP:

The MOQ is an atheistic religious outlook that solves rather than bypasses
religious problems.

John:

You gotta give credit to the guy, he's tap-dancing up a storm here.

Cop:

  Indeed, a good deal of the popularity of idealism was due to the
conviction that it stood firmly on the side of religion. To be sure, with
Bradley, the greatest of the British idealists, the concept of God passed
into that of the Absolute, and religion was depicted as a level of
consciousness which is surpassed in metaphysical philosophy, while
McTaggart, the Cambridge idealist, was an atheist.

RMP:

The MOQ agrees with both.

John:

See what I mean?  If that's not some fancy dancin', I dunno what is.

Cop:

But with the earlier idealists the religious motive was much in evidence,
and idealism seemed to be the natural home of those who were concerned with
preserving a religious outlook in face of the threatening incursions of
agnostics, positivists and materialists.

John:

Ok, note the list of enemies here. agnostic, positivist, materialists.

 RMP:

The MOQ resolves this conflict and thus takes both sides.

John:

Ok, at this point I'd like to pause and ask a question.  How?  How does the
MoQ take both sides?

I would agree that the MoQ can take either side, given a particular time and
context.  But these two sides are opposed, and at one time, a certain side
would be the better Quality way to go, and then at another time, perhaps the
other would be better.  After millinia of religious control, materialistic
views were vitally needed to counter the cultural and logical effects of so
many years of priestly control of intellect, and thus would be a
higher-quality way to go at that time.  But the MoQ wouldn't say that
"preserving a religious outlook" in those times, would be just as good.  It
plainly wouldn't.  Everybody can see that, especially from hindsight.  In
the moment, in purely dialogic comparison, betterness always IS.


Otherwise, you're saying, you're Quality isn't any good.  Your salt has lost
it's savor.  Betterness is always real.

So how can one take "both sides"  from an MoQ perspective,  hmmm???

CoP:

Further, after Bradley and Bosanquet idealism turned from absolute to
personal idealism and was once again favourable to Christian theism, though
by that time the impetus of the movement was already spent.

John:

"Personal" sounds subjective, to me, and thus on the wrong end of the horny
bull.  So I'm gonna focus on the Absolute kinds of Idealism, as that's the
main point of my thesis of the MoQ as a species of Absolute Idealism.

And the ongoing topic at hand as well, since we end with Bradley and Royce
and their individual stances of Absolute Idealism.