[MD] Changes in 2011

[John Carl]

Andre,


> Andre:
> You are quite tenacious John, in your defence of Royce and his Absolute.
> You even drag James' friendship with Royce into the argument as evidence of
> congruence of Royce's Absolute and the MOQ.
> The historical evidence however is quite different. James, in preparing his
> Edinburgh lectures wrote how he intended to 'destroy both [Royce] and the
> Absolute'.
>
> , Andre, to imply that James had the intention of "destroying" Royce has
got to be one of the most ill-founded and outrageous claims I've read on
this list.  They were good and true life-long friends.  They agreed on about
98 % of their philosophical outlook (Kuklick) and James famously quoted that
in the future, Harvard would be remembered mainly as the institution which
fostered Josiah Royce.

I've answered this before, and I remember that you had no response to my
refutation of your claim.  Evidently you think that it is  the proper
intellectual ploy to ignore the opposing side in a debate or otherwise fail
to make an intelligent response, wait a period of time, and then make the
same exact charges again.

Well, I can't blame you.  It's undoubtedly a ploy you learned here on this
forum where it is practiced openly and frequently.




> There is a photograph of James and Royce on a stone wall at Chocorua
> (James' property). The photo was 'snapped just as James was saying 'Damn the
> Absolute', arguing that 'The truth is too great for any one actual mind,
> even though that mind be dubbed 'the Absolute',  to know the whole of it.
> The facts and worths of life need many cognizers to take them in. There is
> no point of view absolutely public and universal'( William James In the
> Maelstrom of American Modernism, R. Richardson, p381)
>
>
You seem to construe intense philosophical engagement as total rejection.  I
feel bad for you.

I'd say Royce's further development of philosophy, called Absolute
Pragmatism,  answered this challenge but since that happened after Jame's
death, those who  rely upon authority alone to do their thinking for them
will never know.



>
> For Pirsig, anything remotely smelling of any form of absolutist view in
> whatever guise became 'just more of the prison again' (ZMM, p129) and
> totally incongruent with his MOQ.
>
>

I've come to the conclusion that even if you are wrong in this, it doesn't
matter since Pirsig's designated interpreter is thoroughly nauseated by
anything smacking of absolutism.  (Which, btw, smacks of a pretty clear
"absolutism" all on its own, but never mind) Thus I do agree with you that
there is absolutely no interest in Royce here and no reason to bring him up
anymore.

The ironic thing is, Royce would have undoubtedly embraced Pirsig, for
Pirsig is plainly a further outworking Royce's thought, even while developed
independently of Royce.  But that doesn't matter at all, does it?  The
proper path for me then would be to discuss the MoQ with Royceans, rather
than try anymore to foist off Royce on Pirsigians.

I fundamentally agree with you, in other words.



> As dmb pointed out to you, he has presented you with ample evidence before,
> and so have I. To continue to insist on this congruency may make sense to
> you but it is incompatible with Pirsig's MOQ. It ends up becoming
> intellectually dishonest of you to maintain this position in the context of
> Pirsig's MOQ. And that is what we are discussing here. Not yours.
>
> If you do insist I'd suggest you create your own q site.
>
>
No need for that, Andre.  Royce has been ignored for a long time, but he's
becoming more and more in vogue these days and I have plenty of
opportunities to explore him with those more  open-minded than I find around
here.  Some people are excited by philosophical difference and discussion,
some people are nauseated.  I know instinctively which side I'm on there.

You go ahead and enjoy yourself with the nauseous.

John