[MD] Changes in 2011

[John Carl]

Without aspersions or insults, let's just try and stay on track here dave,


> dmb says:
> No, actually Pirsig ends up embracing Bradley because Bradley is a mystic.
> Here is Pirsig's statement in a fuller context:
> As was stated in ZMM there was a time many years ago when I looked through
> the pantheon of philosophers for resemblances to the MOQ. Since Bradley was
> always classified as an idealist, it did not seem important to investigate
> him thoroughly because the MOQ rejects the metaphysical assertion that the
> fundamental reality of the world is idea.But the description of Bradley as
> an idealist is completely incorrect.  Bradley’s fundamental assertion is
> that the reality of the world is intellectually unknowable, and that defines
> him as a mystic.So It has really been a shock to see how close Bradley is to
> the MOQ. Both he and the MOQ are expressing what Aldous Huxley called "The
> Perennial Philosophy," which is perennial, I believe, because it happens to
> be true. Bradley has given an excellent description of what the MOQ calls
> Dynamic Quality and an excellent rational justification for its intellectual
> acceptance.  It and the MOQ can be spliced together with no difficulty into
> a broader explanation of the same thing.A singular difference is that the
> MOQ says the Absolute is of value, a point Bradley may have thought so
> obvious it didn't need mentioning. The MOQ says that this value is not a
> property of the Absolute, it is the Absolute itself, and is a much better
> name for the Absolute than "Absolute."  Rhetorically, the word "absolute"
> conveys nothing except rigidity and permanence and authoritarianism and
> remoteness.  "Quality," on the other hand conveys flexibility, impermanence,
> here-and-now-ness and freedom.  And it is a word everyone knows and loves
> and understands—even butcher shops that take pride in their product.
> Beyond that the term, “value,” paves the way for an explanation of evolution
> that did not occur to Bradley.  He apparently avoided discussing the world
> of appearances except to emphasize the need to transcend it.  The MOQ
> returns to this world of appearances and shows how to understand these
> appearances in a more constructive way.
>
> dmb continues:See? He's saying he rejects idealism and didn't investigate
> Bradley because he was labeled an idealist. But Pirsig is surprised to find
> in Copleston's text a description of Bradley's position that makes him a
> mystic who's giving expression to the perennial philosophy. Bradley is close
> to the MOQ but NOT because he is an Absolute Idealist. He rejects the notion
> that the world is idea as well as the rigidity and authoritarianism of
> idealism, but that's not what he finds in Bradley so he doesn't see those
> reasons to reject it.
>
>

John:

What he's saying here is that he rejected Bradley earlier, because he
thought he understood what Absolute Idealism was all about.   He admits
somewhere, that Phaedrus had gone through a slap-dash critical phase where
he picked up and discarded philosophical treatises but he read them in a
very "axe-grindey" way and he's admitting here in this passage that his
earlier dismissal was too hasty.

Whereas you are trying to tie him strongly to his earlier dismissal, and
thus showing yourself as incapable of the true flexiblity of a great
thinker, Pirsig shows us the true attributes of intellectual honestly by
basically saying, "hey, my earlier disparagement was wrong."


Furthemore, we both know, my real issue isn't getting Bradley's congruence
to the MoQ, it's getting Royce's - the American side of Absolute Idealism
which by the end of Royce's life had evolved to something called "Absolute
Pragmatism" and since Royce was Jame's lifelong friend and debate partner, I
find a great deal of worthy discussion there concerning Royce's congruence
and the MoQ - that here there really is something which " It and the MOQ can
be spliced together with no difficulty into a broader explanation of the
same thing".

Furthermore, I make the claim that Royce was ignored by Pirsig because Royce
was ignored by the intellectual academy and for precisely for the same
reasons that Pirsig is largely ignored by the intellectual academy.  That
claim I make, is a very, very interesting one and ought to intrigue any true
scholar or seeker of wisdom and the fact that you are so vehement in your
refusal, says a lot about you.