[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

Yes , correct,totally.

Aldous Huxley

"But isn't it natural to feel there's a God?"

"You might as well ask if it's natural to do up one's trousers with
zippers," said the Controller sarcastically. "You remind me of another of
those old fellows called BRADLEY. He defined philosophy as the finding of
bad reason for what one believes by instinct. As if one believed anything by
instinct! One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe
them. Finding bad reasons for what one believes for other bad reasons–that's
philosophy. People believe in God because they've been conditioned to."


In "Brave New World", Bradley emphased(adrie)


-------------------------------------------------------------

I agree on your conclusion on Bradley, David, i already checked him out.
Greetz, Adrie


2010/11/29 david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>

>
>
> John said:
> Royce and James were both skeptical of Hegel, and even Pirsig was
> enthusiastic in the end, of the one Absolute Idealist that he encountered in
> the Copleston Annotations - FH Bradly.
>
> dmb says:
> No, Pirsig was NOT surprised and pleased by Bradley's Absolute Idealism.
> It's precisely because Bradley - for a moment - was talking like a
> philosophical mystic and an advocate of the perennial philosophy and not
> like an Absolutist. And you're glossing over the fact that James saw both
> Royce as Bradley as philosophers with a fundamentally different temperament
> than his own. Schiller, James's English bodyguard, attacked Bradley so
> mercilessly that James had to tell him to cool down. Repeatedly. Schiller
> wrote hilarious and scathing parodies of his scholarly papers and mockingly
> attributed them to "F.H. Badly", for example. In any case, it's certainly
> NOT evil or slanderous to say James was "furiously against" his life long
> friend and sparring partner Royce. It's just a relatively strong way to
> characterize the fundamental differences between rationalists and
> empiricist, between romantic and classic styles of thought. Pirsig and James
> want to fuse these two modes and so they ar
>  e simply picking one side over the other. With the MOQ you get empiricism
> and mysticism at the same time but this is accomplished by being radically
> empirical. The mysticism is IN the empiricism, not despite it or even along
> side it.
>
> But I think you are not fusing them. You're just confusing them. Big
> difference.
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser