[MD] Intellectual honesty

[John Carl]

Let's see how long he lasts:


> dmb replies:
>
> If it were just a matter of sheer weight then the scale would definitely be
> tipped toward denigrating comments, yes. But it's more than that. His
> denials are just so clear that it is entirely implausible to describe Pirsig
> as an endorser or as being enthusiastic about Absolute Idealism. Besides the
> two denials in Lila, there is this one from ZAMM. It directly answers your
> last question in the negative.
>
> "Hegel had talked like this, with his Absolute Mind. Absolute Mind was
> independent too, both of objectivity and subjectivity. However, Hegel said
> the Absolute Mind was the source of everything, but then it excluded
> romantic experience from the 'everything' it was the source of. Hegel's
> Absolute was completely classical, completely rational and completely
> orderly.  Quality was not like that." (ZAMM 252)
>



Royce was clearly just as dismissive of Hegel's Absolute.  Pointedly and
quotedly so, as I've pointed and quoted before.  Therefore, to equate this
early understanding as antithetical to Quality, makes my point that it was a
"shock" to later Pirsig to learn of an Idealism that was so completely
congruent or "perennial" with the MoQ because he'd earlier associated
Idealism with Hegel's Idealism.

And that's why the weight of twenty years of railing against something, can
disappear with a POP shock in a moment.  Call it, "a realization".

And I worry about you dave, I really do.  Because this seems so plain to me,
that you've over-invested your ego in what you already hold as true.  I
don't think Jamesian Pragmatism has treated you well.

I imagine you on the witness stand, "I swear to speak what is expedient, and
only what is expedient, so help me future experience."



> This is consistent with the comments he made 17 years later, where DQ "is
> not a social code or some intellectualized Hegelian Absolute. It is direct
> everyday experience." (Lila, 366)
>
>

We have gone over this before.  Remember?  You threw these repeated quotes
at me rejecting Hegelian Absolutes and I threw back answers of Royce's
refutation of his Absolute Idealism as being completely different than
Hegel's?


You reminded me once, that obviously you were a much better arguer in real
life, or how would you aspire to the levels of academia to which you
aspire?

And you have so many admirers and supporters whom I respect, that you really
must be a lot smarter than you seem to me, and you're just doing that thing
of "talking down the level of your audience" and since you're convinced I'm
an ignorant idiot, you don't bother bringing your "A" game.

It's probably my fault, really.


> It's not just the quantity of such statements. It's the clarity of these
> denials. That's what makes your point so implausible. You want to equate
> Quality and the Absolute but Pirsig says they are not the same. Period. Is
> there any reasonable way to interpret "Quality is not like that" so that it
> means "Quality is just like that"? Of course not. Like I said, the best you
> can do is make a case that the similarities are interesting or illuminating
> or something like that. But to suggest that Pirsig is an enthusiastic
> endorser of Bradley's or anyone's Absolute Idealism would simply be false.
>


Ummm... dave?   You did read the quote at the end of the Annotations?  I
mean, how can you possibly construe :

"So It has really been a shock to see how close Bradley is to the MOQ. Both
he and the MOQ are expressing what Aldous Huxley called "The Perennial
Philosophy," which is perennial, I believe, because it happens to be true.
Bradley has given an excellent description of what the MOQ calls Dynamic
Quality and an excellent rational justification for its intellectual
acceptance. It and the MOQ can be spliced together with no difficulty into a
broader explanation of the same thing."

as not enthusiastic?  The man is jumping up and down going "woo hoo" but you
think you can interpret it however you want, however it serves your purpose.

So what is your purpose?

I mean, beyond whatever's expedient.





> If you can read, and you've read those quotes, then you know better. So now
> if you make that claim, you are simply being intellectually dishonest.
>
>

Like I've already said too many times, you're the expert on projection.  And
anyway, I'm not intellectual enough to be intellectually dishonest.

I'm artistically dishonest - which is the kind of lie you create when you're
trying to convey a truth that can't be put in words.



> And, look, I realize it doesn't help to dispute your claims with "an
> attitude of such superiority andpersonal denigration", as you put it. But,
> John, look at yourself.



Done that, been there.  Described the experience.



> Your argument is wildly at odds with very clear evidence and never every
> single thing you say to me includes a little side-dish of hostile insults.
> It's just stupid and mean and childish. How do you think I'm going to
> respond to that. I think my response is far more respectful than you
> deserve, actually.
>
>
Well you're the one wildly at odds with very clear evidence, if you ask me.
Or any other fair-minded reader of our dialogue.

As to the side-dish of hostile insults... like I said, you started it dave.
You shoulda just simply apologized and admitted you were wrong, but
no-o-o-o.  You chose to be arrogant about it and make me your enemy.

I don't enjoy being mean and insulting.  You force me into it.

poopy head.


>
>
> Some day I'll tell you what I really think, then you'll realize what a
> prince I am today.
>
>

Don't bother.  I already know.  I'm pretty good at getting people, and I get
you dmb - prince of darkness.

And I don't have to wait for someday.  I tell what I really think, all the
time.



honest John