[MD] Essentials for target practice

[John Carl]

Salutations Ham,

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Ahoy there, John --
>
>
Did you know Alex G. Bell proposed "Ahoy" as the proper telephone greeting?
Which goes to show you can invent something but that doesn't mean you have
any control over how people use it.



> [John]:
>
>  I see.
>> I think.
>> Seeing that I think, I infer an existence.
>> Thinking that I see, I infer an essence.
>>
>
> Interesting analysis.  But the premise you should be analyzing is:
> Does the precept "I" (as in "I see" and "I think") infer that the essence
> is you?



Am I a percept or a concept?  The physical parts of my body I perceive, but
that "I" doing the perceiving,   I'd surmise is conceptual.



>
> Now you're talking philosophology.  How does Essentialism stack up against
> Bradley and Royce?  Since there can be only one Absolute, I assume the
> "absolutes" you are pondering are really various conceptions of the
> Absolute.
>


>From the SEP:

Royce's friendly but longstanding dispute with William James, known as "The
Battle of the Absolute," deeply influenced both philosophers' thought. In
his later works, Royce reconceived his metaphysics as an "absolute
pragmatism" grounded in semiotics. This view dispenses with the Absolute
Mind of previous idealism and instead characterizes reality as a universe of
ideas or signs which occur in a process of being interpreted by an infinite
community of minds. These minds, and the community they constitute, may
themselves be understood as signs. Royce's ethics, philosophy of community,
philosophy of religion, and logic reflect this metaphysical position.


John:

So the variety of conceptions, reveal the perennial reality of the thing,
according to Royce.  So Ham's, Royce's, Pirsig's and Bradley's conception of
Absolute Quality (in Pirsigian term) are all different fingers pointing at
the moon.

Now I'm guessing, but I'd say that any one conception is not THE conception,
but each conception is the best at a certain time, coming from a certain
place.


John prev:

>
>
>  Naming is differentiation.  In nature, we pick apart those aspects of
>> difference that catch our attention, and label them creatively.
>> Thus the fabled Inuit's hundred different words for "snow", whereas
>> I only see snow.  In other words, I see no functional difference
>> between differentiation and naming.
>>
>> In other words, I agree.
>>
>
> Ham:


> Naming is one kind of differentiation, which may suffice for a writer.  But
> unless the object or phenomenon being named is perceptual, that is, viewed
> or experienced independently of nomenclature, it is not differentiated in an
> ontological sense.  For most adults, the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny are
> named characters.  This differentiates them in fictional references but not
> as existents.
>
>
Concepts exist!  Even if "only" in our head,  The real reality out there is
influenced by our preconceptualized ways of knowing.  And ideas exist.
Don't you agree with Pirsig, that "the law of gravity" exists?  It exists as
an idea, just as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

Admittely, some ideas are better than others - which makes "betterness" a
foundation for reality, hmmmm?  (I'll convert you yet, Ham)


Ham:

I suppose Essentialism is a kind of Idealism, mainly due to its absolutist
> premise.  I wonder, though, if Pirsig's Qualityism is not also
> idealistic--despite its "pluralistic" foundation.
> What thinkest thou, John?
>
>

John:  You know the answer to that one by now.  Ron's mentioned a couple of
times that the MoQ is of the Philosophical Idealism breed, and of course I
agree, since that's been my cant here from day one.

jeez.  When I think how many times I've said this, and in so many ways...
and to be accused of trying to "sneak"...

Sorry.. distracted for a minute by a different dialogue.



>
> Sounds like a fascinating study, John.  Let me know what conclusions it
> leads you to.
>
>
You can be sure, Ham.  I'm getting in the mood to  revisit  the Copleston
Annotations.  I've learned a bit regarding Idealism since I last reviewed.
It'd be fun, I think.  Annotate the annotations of what are basically,
Annotations.

And doing it here so anyone can Annotate them.

See why I say a 4th level of intellectual patterns is infinite at the upper
boundary?



Take care,

John