[MD] Royce's Absolute, conclusion

[John Carl]

>
> 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...
>
>



Well I see the confusion, dave.  I see it clear.  It is part and parcel of
the world view Pirsig describes as "SOM", and according to that somish
description, of course transcendant is outside of human experience.

But I'd hoped that after all these years discussing SOM and its aspects,
you'd have some inkling that might give you a clue...

tsk tsk, sad dissapointment.  You reach for a wiki definition of some kind,
handed down from acceptable authority and thrust it in my face as if it
means anything.

It would be amusing if it were not so pathetic.



> 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."
>
>
I agree that the conversation is not fruitful.  Didn't I admit to the waiter
that the conversation is no good?  You have no recourse to reason beyond
"what authority says" and the fact that Pirsig contradicts your reliance on
authority, means nothing to you.

You do pay too much attention to dictionaries.  For a philosopher's
thoughts, you must study the philosopher's words.  What Royce means by a
transcendant absolute, realizable in immediate experience is a very
complicated ontological argument obviously over your head.

Stick to your dictionary-wiki regurgitations and stay away from real
thinkers, is my advice.


> 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 realize this is completely true.  After all, what is sense?  Is it not
communication of an idea or concept from one mind to another?  And can I
accomplish this all on my own?  Does not the other need some sort of
realization capacity in order to comprehend?  And have you ever demonstrated
to me or my satisfaction, the ability to understand another's thoughts or
empathize with another's point of view?  Of ANYBODY on this list?

I know all this.

I'm just amusing myself with your idiocy, while clarifying my own
understandings.  If you could actually hit a high hard one back once in a
while (in bounds) I might get some real dialectical practice.

But alas, I see it is not to be.



> 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.
>


I, on the other hand, am grateful to you for helping me by forcing me to
clarify my positions enough that now I'm very happy with them and feel
capable of answering any questions regarding Royce and the MoQ.

Good job!

And you've kept me amused.

A two-fer!

Thanks dave,


John the highly amused