[MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics

[John Carl]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:40 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> dmb quoted William James:
> ... True ideas lead us into useful verbal and conceptual quarters as well
> as directly up to useful sensible termini. They lead to consistency,
> stability and flowing human intercourse. They lead away from excentricity
> and isolation, from foiled and barren thinking."
>
>
> John replied:
> Now tha's what I'm talkin' about. Write on dave,
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I'm flattered that you could confuse my writing with James's.


I didn't dave.  I'm at least that keen of eye.  I was praising your writing
his words.  They were most apropos.



(Rorty said he'd give his right arm to write like James.)



Henry or William?


Jesse?



> The problem is that you're still trying to defend Absolute Idealism without
> understanding the meaning of those terms. I mean, you seem to be defending
> "The Absolute" as if it just meant "total", "unqualified or "unrestricted".
> You're using it as an adjective, as in "the absolute truth" or "their
> absolute authority". In philosophy, however, "The Absolute" is a noun.



 I like nouns.  Nouns are good.  The absolute is good, therefore the
absolute is a noun.  I get that, totally and agree completely.  Good is a
noun.

I see what you mean about using absolute as an adjective, and admittedly as
 a rhetorical device is a bit trite or overblown, but in a philosophically
meaningful  way, it simply refers to the furthest reaches of possibly
conceivable experience, in the area of truth - intellectual reasoning -
rationality itself.



It is a divine metaphysical entity. You're doing the same thing with the
> term "ideal". As an adjective, it just means whatever is most suitable or
> desirable, the most perfect example of what we'd like from a thing or
> situation. But in philosophy, Idealism is the view that reality is
> fundamentally mental or spiritual and it's usually opposed to realism and
> physicalism.
>
>
Well, I addressed this elsewhere, but I think there is a point to be made
that a metaphysical foundation of betterness is quite apropos of "whatever
is most suitable or desirable" for are they not synonomous of meaning or
intention?  Thus "Idealism" resonates on many levels with the word "Quality"
for it implies, like quality does, betterness.

Idealism is the philosophy that reality is based upon mind or ideas.  That's
the first line of wiki, on the matter.  Quality is an idea, thus the MoQ is
a species of Idealism.  Plain and simple, dave.




> Now look, John. You continue to misuse these central terms despite my
> attempts to explain what they mean. You take my appeals to dictionaries and
> encyclopedia as some kind of academic elitism and authoritarianism, as
> snobbery and insult. I think that's not just unreasonable, it's also a
> little bit nuts. How can I take your love of Absolute Idealism seriously if
> you're using inappropriate definitions of both "Absolute" and "Idealism"?
>  You literally don't know what you're saying!
>
>
That might be often true.  I say the speed of light is some 186,000 miles
per second, but do I really know what I say?  Depends on what you mean by
"know" I guess.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what I'm saying.  That's the essence of our
problem, if you ask me.  But for the most part, I'm content to get my
knowledge of what Absolute Idealism means from the guys who flew that flag -
Bradley and Royce, rather than your judgements garnered from SEP and wiki
and the disparagement in fashion in your academic circles.  That's all.
 Whine all you want about it, I understand.



You don't have to take my word for it. If you're reading this on computer
> then there are many explanations right at your fingertips. Just go look it
> up and find out for yourself.  It's simply impossible to talk about Absolute
> Idealism with me or anyone else if you don't understand the philosophy
> behind the label. You can't derive an understanding that philosophy from the
> adjectives "absolute" and "ideal".
>
>
Right.  Understood.  There's a difference between philosophical
argumentation and using rhetorical terms to persuade towards those
philosophies.  Valid enough criticism, I'll avow.  However, in my defense, I
have played it the other way with you dave, and I get dismissal from you on
rhetorical grounds.  The "connotations" of absolutes is pejorative.  That's
the argument you gave against using it.  Can you really criticize me then
for meeting you on the ground you defined?  And making it about the
rhetoric?



> Imagine a philosophical essay titled "In Defense of Scientific
> Materialism". Now imagine you started reading it and quickly discover that
> the author is making a case for high-tech fabrics, synthetic wool or the
> futuristic aesthetic of some new fashion designer. Imagine he was a member
> of this group who mistook Pirsig's opposition to scientific materialism as a
> stance against synthetic cloth and a certain trend among runway models.
> Imagine you tried to set him straight by quoting Pirsig and the Stanford
> Encyclopedia of Philosophy and he hated you for it. That's pretty much how I
> see the situation with you and Absolute Idealism. My help doesn't help and I
> get abused for trying.
>
>
Hmmm... high tech fabrics, and fashion designers.  Interesting choice of
analogues there dave... but regardless of your fantasizing, I don't think
you're "hated" for resorting to SEP and wiki and endless verbatim quotes of
Pirsig... at least not by me.

But if you've felt abused by me, I'll apologize and back off.  Having had
dinner with Steve Marquis last week really healed some festering wounds and
helped me a lot in getting past my propensity for abuse towards you.

I'll be a kinder, gentler John in the future, I promise.



>
> The founders of pragmatism "made lifelong assualts on Absolute Idealism".
> Pirsig identifies the MOQ with pragmatism and denies that his Quality is
> some kind of intellectualized Absolute.
>
> Therefore the MOQ can be seen as a kind of Absolute Idealism?
>
>
> Please.


First, Bruce Kuklick's evaluation was completely opposite of your
wiki-research.  I pointed this out before.  There is valid academic
divergence on that very question, and the academic on MY side made a very
serious study of Royce, and has a very good reputation.  so yes, even on
your home turf, dave, there is room for debate.

And I think especially if we take Royce's final development which he called
Absolute Pragmatism, I think we can see Royce and James as co-creative of
many of the fundamental ideas you see as coming solely from James.
 According to Kuklick, they agreed on more than 95%  metaphysically, which
 he spells out exactly and in order and I've posted more than twice in
response to this charge.  You usually sulk and go elsewhere for a while.

But you refute all that with your own pet, chosen authority and dismiss all
my pet, chosen authority as ill-informed, simply because I'm admittedly
ill-informed.  I may be, but I can google as quick as the next guy, dave.
 University isn't the advantage that it used to be.  Get off your high horse
and deal with the issues rationally.

Ummm... was that abusive?  Dang.  This may be a hard habit to break.

John