[MD] Royce's Absolute, conclusion

[david buchanan]

dmb said:

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."


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?


dmb says:

No, John. If consciousness is a natural feature of reality from top to bottom, then consciousness is inherent and is direct experience in every sense. transcendent |tranˈsendənt|adjective - beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience : the search for a transcendent level of knowledge.• surpassing the ordinary; exceptional : the conductor was described as a “transcendent genius.”• (of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. Often contrasted with immanent . inherent |inˈhi(ə)rənt; -ˈher-| adjective - existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute : any form of mountaineering has its inherent dangers | the symbolism inherent in all folk tales. 

You see why I find it so frustrating to talk to you? You're accusing me of a clumsy word dance but it's pretty obvious that you're confused about the basic meanings of these terms. Here's the other main example of your confusion, which is a variation of the confusion above...


dmb said to John:

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.


John replied:

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.



dmb says:

Maybe I pay too much attention to the meaning of these terms as they are used by the philosophers who use them and maybe I pay too much attention to dictionaries and the demands of standard American english. Or maybe you just don't care what words mean and maybe you have no idea what you're talking about. "Transcendent" means it is beyond or above normal human experience. "Everyday" means it is a common, normal, routine human experience. These terms are so opposed that each one can be defined in terms of NOT being the other. In the same way that "hot" means "not cold" or the way "up" means "not down", transcendent means "not everyday". How can I have a conversation about Royce's transcendent Absolute with you if won't even acknowledge what the words "transcendent" and "Absolute" mean? It's not possible to have a fruitful conversation under those circumstances. That's why I said, "I really don't think you know how to play at all, let alone nicely or fairly."

To which John replied:

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.


dmb says:

It's not your writing that bugs me and at this moment it's not the theism that bugs. It is your thinking - or rather your inability to think - that bugs me. You're making no sense at all. I watched your attempts to interpret the wiki article's definitions of the Absolute and realized that even that was way over your head. I watched you dismiss one Royce scholar after another, including the former President of the Royce Society. I watched you dismiss Pirsig's explicit rejection of the Absolute AND I watched you conveniently forget those rejections as I patiently re-posted that evidence at least three times. From all this I can only conclude that you not only don't know WHAT to think, you also don't know HOW to think. I'm not sure if this is a matter of sincere ignorance or dishonest evasion but either way the result is a big pile of steaming nonsense. 


 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1