[MD] Royce's Absolute, conclusion

[John Carl]

Well I did promise a full explication of Royce's Absolute, and I would like
to finish my task, without being distracted by ongoing dialogue, which I
have done, but haven't yet sent.  I thought I'd wait till I got my half of
the argument successfully completed, which hopefully this missive will
accomplish, and I can move on to more important things - the low road.  The
scratchings in the lowly dirt that hold the hopes for all people's.  The
City on the Hill, still alive, moving underground.  Like Rabbits...  With
carrots.

And sticks.


Further explaining Royce's Absolute AS Direct Experience (DQ) I continue:

We are directly presented only with our own ideas.  Let us assume that they
"correspond" to the real world outside ourselves (and please don't bore me
Dave with another definition and dismissal of "the correspondence theory of
truth.-   Listen. )  although we will not discuss this correspondence now.

Given that in our consciousness a and b are related, we assume a similar
relation A:B in the external world.  What is the most plausible hypothesis
concerning the nature of the terms  A and B in this assumed external world?
 Berkeley contends that there corresponds to finite consciousness a higher
and furthur reaching consciousness, containing "all that is abiding in our
consciousness and much more besides."

There is no external world but this other consciousness; the statements we
make about it are true, for example, if our present experiences correspond
to the experiences of this higher consciousness which ours are about.

Each possible and actual experience of every moment in our lives and all the
possible and actual experiences which comprise our universe will be
"represented" by some momentarily present fact in external consciousness.
 The relations of these facts will be similar in nature and in complexity to
the relations among the facts of our actual or possible experiences.  And
the consciousness of this "universal Knowing One" will determine the limits
of possible experience.

"this supposed universal knowing consciousness, this "not ourselves" has,
under the conditions stated, all the essential (Hey Ham, how they hangin'?)
characteristics of a real world.  It is beyond us; it is independent of us;
its facts have a certain correspondence to our sensations.  Under the
supposition that by nature we tend to be in agreement with this
consciousness, progress in the definiteness and extent of our agreement with
it may be both possible and practically useful.  (I John Carl, for one have
found it so.) This agreement would constitute truth.  No other real world
need be supposed behind or above this consciousness."

Royce


This consciousness is not a creator but a seer.  It does not make or unmake
individual beings; on the contrary, they are made or unmade when patterns
that we call organic living bodies arise or disappear in the universal
consciousness.

Does this answer your question Marsha, about Royce's relation to Buddhism?
 Any of it ringing bells yet?

These patterns pass and with them passes the individual consciousness with
which they co-existed.  The growth and decay is a "law of experience" -- "an
ultimate and inexplicable sequence".  We make no claims about the dependence
or independence of finite consciousness on the external consciousness, but
assert only the one-to-one relationship.

Are you starting to understand how Royce's Absolute is Direct Experience, or
DQ, yet dave?

This analysis is only a hypothesis.  It is merely an elaboration and
clarification of Royce's thought as it had developed prior to the Religious
Aspect of Philosophy.  He claims that is simple, intelligible, and
plausible.  And I agree.  But his committement to it as anything other than
hypothesis depends on more far-reaching considerations of the other aspects
of idealism to be explored.

If we're gonna do that, that is.

Which is doubtful, at present.  Every time I hit the ball to you, it comes
back at me into the net or sailing far, far away over the fence.

But at least I've outlined the general gist of Royce's Absolute, as
requested.  And upon which my conviction that his Absolute is DQ is based.

Which was my goal.

His logical basis upon the existence of error, is part of his logic
supporting, but I've done that before and I don't usually repeat myself too
often.

I'm weird, but I'm not Bo.

John