[MD] still going?

Sun Feb 7 10:11:40 PST 2016

as John claims

"So I wonder why it's hard for you to admit the truth of my assertion.
It seems to me that all the evidence is on my side of the argument."

(adrie)
Not exactly. I do not see the content.What is the content of your
assertation, ?
i did backscroll the entire thread and i do not really find the content, or
the content  is hidden as a disguised covert-op.
do i have to comb the the conversations before stumbling upon the 'evidence'
or will you make a case.Not as easy as it seems. i will give an example.

snip from John earlier on...from a conversation with Dan

"Jc:  Dan, this is where the MoQ ought to have a teaching about faith.
Faith that what is good and what is not good isn't a question you have
to ask any authority, scholarly or legal.  Ask yourself.  If you don't
know, then you're doomed anyway so what difference does it make."

-------------------
It is Plato himself making this remark and Pirsig makes an friendly eyewink
out of the model to give an example in the Moq,to teach the lesson Plato
himself was teaching..... and John carefully reverse-engineers this as such
that actually he is the one that actually tought this up,positioning even
the word faith as such that it becomes a theistic sting in the balloon.
Plato tought up these lines , John, not you!

How on earth is it possible to distort Plato's lessons?
Do i have to expect some clean cut content?

2016-02-07 0:29 GMT+01:00 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:

> Adrie,
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Adrie Kintziger <parser666 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I took a fast snip from pedia.Lack of time today.
>
>
> My favorite source for Royce expertise is Randall Auxier.  He told me
> he wrote the wikipedia entry on Royce, so you and I are on the same
> page so far...
>
> >
> >
> > wiki/Royce
> >
> > The former of these contained a new proof for the existence of God based
> > upon the reality of error.
> >
> > All errors are judged to be erroneous in comparison to some total truth,
> > Royce argued,
> >
> > and we must either hold ourselves infallible or accept that even our
> errors
> > are evidence of a world of truth.
> >
> > Having made it clear that idealism depends upon postulates and proceeds
> > hypothetically, Royce defends the necessity of objective reference of our
> > ideas to a universal whole within which they belong, for without these
> > postulates, “both practical life and the commonest results of theory,
> etc,
> > etc....
> >
>
> Jc:  I'd like to emphasize that bit, right there.  Royce's philosophy
> is labeled "Idealism" because to SOM-ist materialism, if your reality
> isn't grounded in objective fact, then it's "merely in your head".  A
> wide-ranging collections of "paintings" go by that term and I'd say
> the MoQ belongs to that collection also.  But by making it clear that
> "hypothetical" is ALL we can ever hope for, Royce delves into the
> nature of "what is a hypothesis" and for this, gets branding by
> SOMists as "a mere idealist".
>
>
> >
> >
> > The reason  to reflect this and compare it with your statement about
> > royce's fallibilism is not to deny royce's commitment to fallibilism , or
> >
> > your claim that we have to accept fallibilism as a given fact but i have
> > other concerns.
> >
> >
> > This is not fallibilism.
>
> Ok, I'm quoting from a book by the same guy that you're quoting in
> wikipedia and I assure you that he is as logically consistent as a
> human can be.  I've known him to be wrong, but not inconsistent like
> that, so I'd have to side with Randy on this one.  what is your
> definition of Fallibilism?
>
> While I'm waiting, I'll see what the interwebs say.  (like looking
> into a crystalline silica ball...
>
> Interesting.
>
> Fallibilism (from Medieval Latin: fallibilis, "liable to err") is the
> philosophical principle that human beings could be wrong about their
> beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world, and yet
> still be justified in holding their incorrect beliefs.
>
> fallibilists argue that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible.
>
> Unlike skepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our
> knowledge; we need not have logically conclusive justifications for
> what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical
> knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we
> take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some
> fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true
> (such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain
> fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these
> axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of
> error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans
> Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty,
> even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen
> trilemma.
>
> ----
>
> Ok, I don't think you're arguing fallabilism, you're arguing whether
> Royce actually held that view.
>
>
> >
> >
> > The claim royce is making in the snippet part is in fact no form of
> > fallibilism.
> >
> > The term error from the claim is to be regarded as mistake, erroneus,
> >
> > we couldd be wrong!!! of course we could! i agree, but this is deviating
> > from fallibilism as Royce is taking the forest for the trees.It's a form
> of
> > moral realism.
> >
> > Fallibilism can only argue with the correct terms, otherwise its a
> mindfuck.
> >
> >
> > adrie
> >
>
> Ok, you're not persuaded by the snippets provided, nor the
> philosophological conclusion of the guy who has studied it the most
> comprehensively, but according to wiki:
>
> "As a formal doctrine, fallibilism is most strongly associated with
> Charles Sanders Peirce, John Dewey, and other pragmatists,"
>
>
> Was Royce considered an "other pragamatist."  He certainly was at the
> time.  He labeled himself, thus.  And scholarly research in my silica
> ball pulls up:
>
>   Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Josiah Royce and John Dewey
> are the usual  actors in the drama called “Classical American
> Philosophy,” and their significance as  philosophers is rightfully
> captured by John McDermott: “They represent one of the most creative
> clusters in the history of philosophy. 1    I believe part of the
> creativity comes from the rich  interchange and relationships between
> the four.  2  These four philosophers shared significant  intellectual
> as well as personal relationships. Peirce and Royce were deeply
> interested in the  logic and science of their time and both developed
> doctrines of a triadic form of knowledge  known as interpretation.
> Royce was the first person to sift through Peirce’s papers and he
> published the first post-mortem assessment of the significance of
> those papers and of Peirce’s  thought in general (Royce and Kernan,
> 1916, The close relationship between William James is  well known to
> many but I believe is best summarized by James’ own words: “Royce and
> I love  each other like Siamese twins”
>
> So I wonder why it's hard for you to admit the truth of my assertion.
> It seems to me that all the evidence is on my side of the argument.
>
> But then, I could be wrong.
>
> John
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 2016-02-02 21:27 GMT+01:00 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Adrie,
> > >
> > > You don't have to read all of Royce, any more than I do.  We all rely
> > > upon philosophology and authority to some extent or another.  Even
> > > though, authority has been dominated by a SO metaphysical outlook!
> > > It's a conundrum, indeed.
> > >
> > > I think together we form a community of interpretation and each view
> > > is an alternative "view of the elephant" that has value and shouldn't
> > > be rejected.  Does this mean just any old thing?  No.  It's tricky, I
> > > admit.  Time and communication are the only way it can be made clear,
> > > who is an individual in the community, and who is not.    Before, I
> > > felt like you were throwing out Royce's insight and contribution to
> > > Pragmatism.  And if you don't believe me, search on Royce, in the
> > > Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.  It's online, you know.
> > >
> > > Ok, on the absolute.  Royce definitely used the term, but he used it
> > > within a purely intellectual framework - that is, whether or not any
> > > absolutes exist, we use certain pre-suppositions for rational
> > > discourse - his fundamental argument was for the unquestionable
> > > existence of error.  What is error?  He asks, a whole lot of lights
> > > dawn upon his thinking, akin to Pirsig's rhetorical query, What is
> > > Quality?  If you think about those terms in relation to life, you see
> > > that they are the same question.
> > >
> > > Now, Royce "used" absolute, in a way that doesn't fly well today, but
> > > Professor Auxier make a  very pertinent point for those that think the
> > > term "absolute" in Royce means rigid, Victorian values.  And Pirsig
> > > himself used the term synomously in his Coppleston Annotations,
> > > disliking only the connotations.    So it's not such a far-fetched
> > > idea that Royce was himself a pre-Pirsigian in his own way.   Auxier
> > > brings a lot of support to his thesis, which I can supply and offer
> > > footnotes and all that academic stuff.
> > >
> > > " As I have said in Chapter1, and have shown by example, Royce's moral
> > > temporalism developed partly as an answer, philosophically and
> > > religiously, to moral problems posed by the annexation of  California
> > > and Royce was working on that history of California and this argument
> > > about error at the same time.  Royce's history of California was an
> > > application of his dramatic or even romantic ontology to the problem
> > > of historiography.  ... it was the collection of solutions to these
> > > problems of self-deception, ignorance, and error that provided the
> > > impetus, the direction, and the goal of Royce's hypothetical or
> > > fictional ontology, in all of its particulars.
> > >
> > > The cultivation of the inner life he called for as a remedy to the
> > > mis-behavior of the Bear Flag "Heroes" is nothing other than the
> > > cultivation of the norms of reflection, especially as the bear upon
> > > practical life.  The development of external boldness, decisiveness,
> > > cleverness, and the virtues praised by the "mock eloquent cant" of the
> > > euphoric masses is meaningless without the firm association of these
> > > virtues with excellent reflection upon our experience, and such
> > > reflection begins with the idea that WE COULD ALWAYS BE IN ERROR.
> > > This is Royce's  FALLIBILISM.
> > >
> > > The fact that it has not been recognized in the literature on both
> > > Royce and the other pragmatists that his argument from error is a
> > > statement of Royce's commitment to fallibilism, simply boggles my
> > > mind.  What could be more obvious?
> > >
> > > And yet, supposedly intelligent people charge Royce with absolutism,
> > > in the very sense contradicted by his argument from error?"
> > >
> > > Auxier, TWL, 68
> > >
> > >
> > > Man, Adrie, you can imagine what a relief it was for me to read those
> > > words, because maybe all the academics with their reliance upon
> > > authority might not have seen this, but I sure did, in the Grass
> > > Valley Library, so long ago.  But I was prepped by Pirsig, so I knew
> > > the full significance of Royce's argument for error.
> > >
> > > But pardon me while I pat myself on the back.  Nobody else is going to.
> > > heh.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > But , David , as i do not have the intention to piss off John further
> > > than
> > > > neccesary i would happily agree with him to read and discuss
> everyting
> > > > about Royce should John make the effort not to pursue the shortcut to
> > > > paradise,but even then, i would make it obligatory for me to read all
> > > > Royce's work wich would take me long.... and i do not know if i can
> spare
> > > > the time or the effort.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think a bigger and more important task than convincing Pirsigians
> > > that Royce was a Pragmatist  but convincing Pragmatists that Pirsig
> > > was one,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your patience with my obsessions,
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > > Probably were clean about that one..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to talk about oter thing anyway, i did hurt my knee very
> badly
> > > > about a month ago and i need some rest.
> > > >
> > > > Adrie
> > > >
> > > > 2016-01-31 17:39 GMT+01:00 david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Adrie Kintziger said to john carl:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ...It is true that i defended the case that James and Royce were in
> fact
> > > >> enemy's but irl de facto friends. My point of view was partially
> derived
> > > >> from the stanford entry about Royce (
> > > >> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/royce/) and after some
> investigation
> > > on
> > > >> this page, the Gifford lectures given by Royce as "the world and the
> > > >> individual", and subsequently thereafter William James "the
> variaties of
> > > >> religious experience" - as the lead on the stanford page suggested i
> > > took
> > > >> the effort to compare the two views, and i had to agree with the
> remarks
> > > >> on
> > > >> the stanford page under the header "life", if you want/like to find
> > > them.
> > > >> I
> > > >> did not invent my point. I honestly found that the narrator was very
> > > >> correct in his analysis.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> dmb says:
> > > >>
> > > >> The Stanford Encyclopedia is considered to be among the most
> credible
> > > >> academic sources, right up there with philosophy Journals and
> University
> > > >> books. And there are many good reasons to draw the conclusion that
> James
> > > >> and Royce had very different views. It's utterly contemptible to
> dismiss
> > > >> SEP as if it were just some guy's opinion or to dismiss the basic
> facts
> > > >> for
> > > >> being the result of "a wrong-headed academic bias".  This is just
> the
> > > >> commonly heard anti-intellectual attitude that says "my ignorance is
> > > just
> > > >> as good as your knowledge". "For some reason," John says, "I didn't
> fit
> > > >> in
> > > >> with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Dogmatic Authority, and so not
> worthy
> > > >> of
> > > >> further discussion or interest" and, he says, "I was ignored and
> > > vilified
> > > >> as a troll".
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> William James said that he and Royce loved each other like "Siamese
> > > >> twins," but it's also true that they were opposed philosophically
> and
> > > >> that
> > > >> James said he wanted to destroy the absolute, wanted its "scalp".
> Royce
> > > >> was
> > > >> an advocate of Idealism and Monism while James was a Pluralist and a
> > > >> Radical Empiricist. James spells out the difference is one of his
> essays
> > > >> on
> > > >> Radical Empiricism, a piece called "Absolutism and Empiricism," and
> the
> > > >> life-long debate between the two men is somewhat famously known as
> "the
> > > >> battle of the Absolute".
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> "James abused Hegel merrily," his biography says. 'Of all mental
> > > >> turpitude
> > > >> and rottennesses,' he thought, Hegelianism takes the cake. 'The
> worst of
> > > >> it
> > > >> is,' James told Hall, it makes an absolute sterility where it
> comes.'
> > > >> James
> > > >> wrote Royce in February 1880, groaning that 'my ignorant prejudice
> > > >> against
> > > >> all Hegelians except Hegel himself grows wusser and wusser. Their
> > > >> Sacerdotal airs! And their sterility!' ...He told Xenos Clark in
> > > December
> > > >> 1880, 'The Hegelian wave which seems to me only another desperate
> > > attempt
> > > >> to make a short cut to paradise, is deluging the College this year
> and
> > > >> will, if I am not mistake, completely sterilize its votaries'. ...He
> > > >> added
> > > >> his by now reflexist reaction to Hegel ('fundamentally rotten and
> > > >> charlatanish'), but went on to concede that 'as a reaction against
> > > >> materialistic evolutionism it has a use, only this evolution is is
> > > >> fertile
> > > >> while Hegelism is absolutely sterile'." -- Robert Richardson,
> William
> > > >> James
> > > >> in the Maelstrom of American Modernism, page
> > > >>   214.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> There are some points in common, of course, but these are very
> different
> > > >> visions, from different schools of philosophy, held by people with
> very
> > > >> different temperaments. I see no good reason to pretend they are
> similar
> > > >> or
> > > >> compatible and l see lots of good reasons for being clear about the
> > > >> distinctions between them. Otherwise it's just the philosophical
> version
> > > >> of
> > > >> pounding a square peg into a round hole. You're only going to
> damage one
> > > >> or
> > > >> both of them in the effort. It's wreckless vandalism and if John
> feels
> > > >> persecuted by this obvious criticism, then he has a problem that
> cannot
> > > >> be
> > > >> solved by anyone but him.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> dmb
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 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
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "finite players
> > > play within boundaries.
> > > Infinite players
> > > play *with* boundaries."
> > > 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
> > 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> "finite players
> play within boundaries.
> Infinite players
> play with boundaries."
> 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