[MD] CA 2 - an aside

[MarshaV]

Hey John,

What exactly are you selling here?  Theism?  Religion?
Absolute Idealism?  I don't get the fancy dance'n accusation?
Why would such tactics be required?


Marsha, the naive.  






On Aug 15, 2010, at 12:52 PM, John Carl wrote:

> 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.
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___