[MD] Royce's Absolute, conclusion

[John Carl]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:31 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:


 In what sense is direct experience (Pirsig) like a universal knowing
> consciousness (Royce's Absolute)? In no sense, is direct experience like a
> universal consciousness.


but then he turns around and replies to Platt:


"Although I do like the idea the consciousness is a natural feature of
reality from top to bottom and all the way through. I think this is
consistent with the Pirsigian idea that physical laws describe an extremely
persistent pattern of preferences."


And John just scratches his head in befuddlement.

You see the idea how consciousness could be reality from top to bottom, but
don't see how this could be direct experience in ANY sense?

How come every time you dance with words, you step all over your own toes?



> As I used to tell Father Norton, you're trying to put a square peg in a
> round hole.
>


This must have been in response to his attempt to inject wisdom in your
head.  I see your point.



>
>
> dmb said to John:
> Pirsig's Quality is called the primary empirical reality and the cutting
> edge of experience. I don't see how this kind of immediate experience can
> reasonably be characterized as transcendent or independent of us in any way.
>
>

I understand how you'd have a problem if the claim is that it's totally or
completely independent of us in any way, but that is not the claim.

I don't understand how you fail to see that it is independent of "us" in
some ways.



>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Why do you do that? I'm objecting to your willingness to equate
> "transcendent" with the "everyday". If you know what those words mean, then
> you know why those concepts can't be equated.



Ultimately they must be equated.  Ultimately they meet.  That's what Pirsig
meant when he described Quality's generation of Reality - every single bit
of it.  That's the transcendant meeting the everyday.

Maybe you think those words mean something they don't.  Maybe you pay too
much attention to your subjective connotations rather than technical
denotations.  Maybe you should pay more attention to the Wise Woman's words:

"Most of the opinions that flow through our minds are also outside our
awareness.  They are a static dance of mental negligence."

(thanks Marsha for that nugget.  I'm gonna treasure "static dance of mental
negligence")


Dude, I'm sorry but I really don't think you know how to play at all, let
> alone nicely or fairly. Bother somebody else, will you?
>
>

Well this is amusing.

The fact that my writing mainly bugs you is your choice not mine.  I never
posted that it was my mission in life to expunge atheists from the MoQ;
while you think its  yours to exclude theists.


John the amused