[MD] Consciousness & Moq.

[John Carl]

Dave T.

>
> The bigger and more important question is, Would James embrace Pirsig?
>


John:

You hit the nail on the head, there buddy.  I believe the answer is in the
Copleston Annotations, which illustrate the issues you raise nicely.  Pirsig
ends up there embracing Bradley and Absolute Idealism and for the very
reasons you show below.




>
> Pirsig claims there is one and only one foundational stuff in the universe,
> Quality. And it is neither thought nor thing but some third (or actually
> all
> kinds) kind of stuff. Mystical stuff, in the philosophical sense in that it
> is ultimately unknowable and indefinable. Everything from quarks to Quixote
> is a manifestation of this ultimately unknowable and indefinable stuff.
>
> Is not this stuff the holy grail that reductionists everywhere seek?
>
>
John:

The only pure empiricist is the mystic - Royce.

And Royce's formulation of Absolute Pragmatism, after James death, provides
the best solution so far for synthesizing James and Pirsig.



> As Krimel has pointed out James was a bottom-up, not a top-down guy.
> Whole bunches of different stuffs conjoin to build other stuffs. Not one
> stuff makes all stuff.
>
> He further claims that all need for "faith" is stricken from his system.
> Please explain to me how this, ultimately unknowable and indefinable
> quality, does not require just as much faith as belief in any God. I'm not
> saying that it might not be a good thing to do, just you must have James'
> "will to believe" and ultimately this boils down to faith.
>
>
Good points all, DT.  I applaud.

John