[MD] still going?

[John Carl]

Adrie, David and any others interested,



On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Adrie Kintziger <parser666 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> As David argued to Adrie
>
> snip
>
> "It's no accident that those interested in re-animating that kind of
> idealism are motivated by some kind of theism because a revival of this
> idealism sort of entails a revival of the possibility of faith.



Jc:  I believe that is correct.  The *possibility* of faith. I realize that
can be a slippery slope, for some, because when we're faced with
post-modern critiques of Realism where it's all "merely" possibility,
people are likely to jump for the comforting ship of dogmatic religion.

I think one thing should be made clear from the outset, philosophical
enquiry (intellect) should ALWAYS be seeking to be as free from
pre-conceptions and especially religion, as possible.  Religion is a social
affair, and intellect needs to be relatively objective in these matters.
So there is no place for Religion, IN the MoQ, but by "IN", I mean codified
into the structure.  As far as the MoQ is concerned, yes, God is real.  So
is the Easter Bunny and so is the atom and so is the Law of Gravity.  All
concepts are real and all reality is conceptual, to some extent or
another.

I However, just because religion is not part of the structure of the MoQ,
doesn't mean that the metaphysics of Quality has nothing to say about
Religion!  This is where the last decade's academic anti-theism, has gotten
it all wrong.  Resisting social pressure cannot *become* one's religion, or
you've fallen into the trap you thought to avoid.

dmb::



> It's easy
> to imagine the desire to rescue one's faith, the desire to make it
> intellectually respectable once again and even to sympathize with that
> desire. But I really don't think it can be done, which is probably why it
> always seems a little desperate or disingenuous.



Jc:  What do you mean by "done"?  Done to your satisfaction?  Or done to
the ends of the earth agreement?  What do you deem, done?   Perhaps you
mean convinced of your own.  But you are a unique individual with unique
needs and history and a conception of God might not "work" for you.  So
that conviction would never be done.  Rationally, anyway.

Let me illustrate what I mean.  You (or I gues it was Adrie)  dug up the
fact that Randy is a sunday school teacher.  A fact which obviously
disparages him in your eyes, but what it made me think of is another
reaction I would get if I shared the fact that he's a musician in a
country-rock band that plays in bars and he's a winebibber.  Oh, they would
gasp.  He obviously has nothing worth saying, he's obviously unfit to be a
teacher of youth.  His morals are suspect and he has no self-control.

I'd say to myself, "that's judging on very narrow and moralistic grounds"
And this is what you and Adrie don't see.  You're letting your own
religious beliefs, cloud your philosophical judgement.



dmb:



> I think it's a dead end,
> at least for the foreseeable future......"
>
>
Jc:  I agree that arguing for the existence of God is a dead end.  If a
person has faith in God, then he'd be stupid to step in between and
interpret.  If God is real, let him do his own arguing.





> Adrie.
> Sorry for the late response, David,one of the relatives of my wife suffered
> a stroke in Turkey whilst on a holliday there, and i also had to go to the
> hospital myself for some mri's and foto's of my knee.But this as an aside.
>
> It gave me some time to think about your point of view.
> I think you are correct on this field.Allow me to give an example.
> Given the 'gospel 'wich is clearly present in Royce's work,Auxier's field
> of interest,and John's field of interest possibly and probably as well John
> as
> Randall would like to restrict and restrain our interferences to the
> theological field of Catholisism, thereby avoiding any possible question
> about monotheism
> polytheism,Islam , thora or whatever availiable.



Jc:  The religious background of Auxier is Methodism, mine is Seventh-Day
Adventism (whose founder had roots in Methodism) and Royce's family  was
Campbellite, which was a minority protestant offshoot.  All of these are
fiercely Protestanly anti-Catholic, so I don't know how you get your
assumptions there.   Royce and me both became very a-religious when we hit
college, but became fascinated with it as a subject of enquiry in our later
years.   I admit a big part of my love of Royce, is that I understand his
language.  I get his allusions and his connotations work for me.  I'm a
simple guy, compared to the philosophical greats which we discuss here, but
sometimes those who dwell in the high country of the mind, communicate the
contours and the vistas around me.  That's when the good stuff enters.
Isn't that why we're all here?


Adr:


> Needless to say that this
> also would restrict and restrain us only to their(Royce,Auxier,John, the
> pope?)'s field of expertise,an expertise that is apparently shaped and
> polished so to speak, to induce  a theistic revival in filosophy again.
>
>
Jc:  Well I hope I've addressed this adequately,

Ad:


> This is not strange nor indecent, but of course if one takes the other
> questions in consideration( monotheism/polyth/islam etc, etc...)then you
> are quit wright
> that it is nearly an impossibilty to have the debate as long as the other
> debates remain unsolved;If we cannot define our variables a priori, and the
> John/Royce/Auxier train only wants to restrain us in the catholic corner.
> Made me think about the variables ahead of us if we should try.....Hmm
> It crosses my mind how Dr Mc Watt carefully defined 'Time' before arguing
> about it in his inquiry into the metaphysiks of Quality guide.So carefull
> !;-
>
>
Jc:  Dr. Mc Watt would enjoy Auxier's book then.  It's largely held
together by his recurrent theme of Time and Person and the problem of
immediacy.  In fact, I think you all would greatly benefit from Auxier's
work.  His philosophical roots are deep and meaningful and his
philosophical connections are strong.  How many other philosopher's do you
know whose work is reference as authoritative by Hintikka
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaakko_Hintikka>? Randy is no intellectual
lightweight, just because he chooses to teach in a church as well as in a
class room.  TOO long!  Too Long, academics and people of intelligence have
shunned the halls of religion and look what has come about - religion has
become desperately stupid.  I know people at church who are afraid if Isis
and have Trump bumper stickers and yet call themselves loving Christians.

On second thought, I understand completely why intellectuals have abandoned
religion.  It can drive ya crazy.




> However this does not mean that it offends me or disturbs me;as John
> suggests, it only offends me to go back to the luggage left behind when the
> Mayflower moored in the America's , or the Halve Maen or the Pilgrim
> fathers.
> This is the wrong luggage.It became a product only , not a message or a
> set of insights., and given the amount of impact it has and had on big
> populations i have to side with Pirsig as he says its a form of mass
> hysterics.
> I think i will be an atheist for life...
>
>
Jc:  Some of my best friends and debating partners are atheists.  Some have
wavered, some have flip-flopped.  It doesn't matter, really, does it?  To
anyone else what beliefs or non-beliefs we hold.  I get atheism, what I
don't get is this virulent anti-theism, the idea that anybody willing to
entertain the notion of God is an idiot.  And I guess I'm addressing dmb
here, mainly, but he obviously has had some kind of bad experience with
theism and just can't get past it.


But really, that should have nothing to do with Royce.  Royce was certainly
no more of a Theist than James, and not a church-goer either.




>
> But quit pro quo for what John is proposing , as apparently some unseen
> quality is is emerging in his postings,consistency is back and he made
> major improvements on the field of philosophy and writing about it.
> So i  will not advocate to boot out Royce as John is not really demandig to
> get rid of Ol' William.
>


Jc:  No.  I only saw James as an opponent of Royce because that was the way
the dichotomy was presented.  I didn't understand then the movement of
American Philosophy as a whole and how they were partners in this endeavor.


>
> Should we , as Irina suggested, keep our religion,out of this debate?;Or is
> religion to interwoven and twined with idealism or many forms of philosphy
> in general to leave it aside?.
>
> The last remark should be interesting for John to resolve....but regardless
> of his lead, i will not take his word for it without delivered content;-(no
> pun intended).
>
>
>
> Thank you most humbly, Adrie.  I appreciate the chance to make my case. I
hope to continue doing so.  Till then, I'll leave you all with one somewhat
lengthy quote, to give you a feel for Royce's roots.

"Royce took Nietzsche very seriously, agreed with him on many points, and
where he took issue with Nietzsche it was the kind of disagreement possible
only for a philosopher who holds his counterpart in the highest respect.
In many ways Royce and Nietzsche were Schopenhauer's two most ungrateful
philosophical offspring, for having internalized the stubborn primacy of
Will, in the world, they each fought with all their might against
Schopenhauer's pessimeistic (or as Nietzsche had it "life-denying" )
conclusions. ... While it was Nietzsche who proclaimed that a philosophical
system can be true for its creator alone, that all philosophical arguments
are really ad hominem attacks, and that therefore philosophy is a kind of
autobiography veiled in a generalizations and concepts, this perspective is
more quietly and more carefully shared by Royce.  There is no final
separation for either thinker between the choices one makes in life and the
philosophy one creates.

The second teacher, apart from Schopenhauer, shared by Nietzsche and Royce
was Ralph Waldo Emerson.  It would reuqire a long inquiry to place this
crucial mutual influence in its proper context.  Chat can be said here is
that for every analogy one can find between Royce and Nietzsche, including
the voluntarism, one may find a solid source in Emerson.

... The point is thaty understanding how Schopenhauer and Emerson overlap
and how they clash, is not a bad way to think through the relation of
philosophy to life, and interesting picture or Royce emerges from the
effort."

Auxier, ibid, pg.30.


Man, I wish I'd had Randy  for a Sunday school teacher instead of
mean-faced Mrs. Todd...

John



Adrie
>
>
>
> 2016-02-08 1:57 GMT+01:00 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:
>
> > Adrie and dave,
> >
> >
> > > It is true altogether that we cannot prove that god does not exist,
> hence
> > > he 'does 'exist or to say the least, fallibilism as a postulate (if
> > > accepted) allows
> > > the creator to stay on top of the pyramid.
> >
> > Jc:  I understand your fear, but I wonder what place "fear" has in
> > rational inquiry?  Perhaps Christianity and Islam have bred such
> > virulent forms of fundamentalist social dominance tactics that any
> > conception of God must be branded as 'evil' immediately and the
> > subject never raised again.  At least it seems that is the gist of the
> > arguments you offer against "sunday-school teacher"  Randy, and me.
> >
> > I almost understand, such a prejudicial stance, but if we're talking
> > about the actual fact of the historical record then we have to be more
> > honest, intellectually, and if you throw out Royce, you sure have to
> > throw out James, who was certainly more of a church-goer than Josiah
> > was.
> >
> > But honestly, is all that really the point?  Royce laid out the proper
> > sphere of religion and philosophy in his Religious Aspect of
> > Philosophy, and right off the bat he makes it clear that these are TWO
> > DIFFERING REALMS.  Just as Pirsig made it clear that religion is
> > social and philosophy is intellectual, Royce makes it clear that
> > Philosophy cannot be constrained or beholden to ANY unexamined
> > preconceptions or prejudice.
> >
> > I would remind you all, that being Anti-God is just as pernicious a
> > prejudice as being pro-God.  In fact.  This can be most plainly
> > observed in the ontology of Ayn Rand, where she explicitly makes moves
> > for no other reason than to exclude God.  and as we all know,
> > unconscious metaphysics tend to be bad metaphysics.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > But in this instance,one has to accept,--fallibilism as true, and
> > > fallibilism as a
> > > postulated guarantee not only that we are wrong to deny the creator'
> > > story,..
> > > but also that we live with the wrong a priori's.
> > >
> >
> > Jc:  Ok, but "wrong" does actually imply the ontological status of
> > "right", therefore the assertion of wrong, fundamentally, helps us
> > escape that modern skepticism which begets nothing but nominalism in
> > academic Pragmatism.
> >
> >
> > Ad:
> >
> > > It did not take me much time to find that Royce, indeed is using
> > fallibilism
> > > to maintain the theistic stance.
> > > It took me less then 10 minutes to keep Auxier against the light to
> find
> > out
> > > he gives bible classes in his free time.But using this as an argument
> > > against
> > > John's apparant will to devote him would make this case moot.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Jc:  I consciously choose a Theistic interpretation to my life.  It
> > helps me feel happy.  What can you do?  We all got our weird little
> > quirks.  I think the problem has been the exclusive nature of theistic
> > interpreters and this has gotten us all a bad name.  You hear any of
> > that "god" talk and right away you think narrow, moralistic,
> > holier-than-thou and all that baggage that has gotten dragged into the
> > dialogue with and about modern Christianity. I hear ya.  I don't
> > blame ya.  that stuff sickens us all.  All I can do is assure you that
> > there are some of us who appreciate the mythic structure of the bible,
> > and observe and influence the communities that collect themselves
> > around those writings.  We don't mean anything absolute about it, but
> > as simply another painting hanging in the gallery, we like it.
> >
> > Sorry if that offends you.
> >
> > I will tell you an interesting story that I fully believe.  It's by
> > another of my favorite authoris, M. Scott Peck. In it, he tells of his
> > encounters with various people who come to him for help, as a
> > psychotherapist and Psychologist.  Many troubled people he as seen,
> > and one thing he has remarked upon over the years is that many times a
> > good christian has come to his office and stayed for the treatment and
> > found help, who has become converted, in the end, to atheism.  Also,
> > many atheists have come to him, talked out their troubles, and come
> > over time to a conclusion that there must be some sort of god out
> > there, and a more deeply connected spiritual life.  So what's going
> > on?  Atheists are converted to Theism and Theists are converted to
> > Atheism, by the same process.  How can that be?  Isn't one of these
> > more right than the other?
> >
> > Well all I can say is, we need to learn to accept where we are and
> > where each other is as well, without all this judgement and criticism
> > and I know Randall Auxier well enough to assert he would say the same.
> >
> > Ad:
> >
> > > My personal perspective on fallibilism in general is derived from
> logic,
> > if
> > > fallibilism is true,then fallibilism itself is probably wrong.
> >
> > Jc:
> >
> > Oh, you think you're clever, doncha.
> >
> > Well... you are. but within limits.  "probably" is "merely" a
> > pejorative term.  Change it to "fallibilism 'could' be wrong" and I'd
> > hum that tune right along with ya and harmonize with a mighty
> > resounding DUH.
> >
> > Ad:
> >
> > > However this does not mean that fallibilism is not a genuine and solid
> > > analytical knife, if handled in skilled hands.Roye apparently
> understood
> > > true/untrue false/correct as 'wrong' and 'mistaken' but if this is the
> > > case, then the denotation is fighting with the connotation, and ths?e
> > game
> > > becomes a mindfuck.I find it rather strange that he attempted to
> repaint
> > > the mona lisa so to speak.
> > >
> >
> > Jc:  I think there is more here to unpack, but the super bowl is on,
> > and I'm gonna go watch more.  GO BRONCOS.
> >
> > didn't Lady Gaga do a wonderful job of the national anthem?  I think so.
> >
> > Love,
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > > But regardless of these moot-events,David , in your opinion, should i
> > take
> > > the effort to read and study some work  of Royce,just for the sake of
> my
> > > knowledge of philosophy, or lack of it? Is there value to discover, new
> > > insights or things that were left behind to easy?
> > >
> > > Adrie.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2016-02-05 16:41 GMT+01:00 david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Adrie quoted Wikipedia to dispute John's claims:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "His publication in 1885 of The Religious Aspect of Philosophy
> > >> ...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, from the simplest
> > >> impressions to the most valuable beliefs, would be for most if not all
> > of
> > >> us utterly impossible”. (see The Religious Aspect of Philosophy, p.
> > 324)"
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> dmb says:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Since Royce was offering fallibilism as "a new proof for the existence
> > of
> > >> God" and "the necessity of objective reference of our ideas", his
> > >> fallibilism is very, very different from the fallibilism of
> Pragmatists
> > >> like James and Pirsig. I think it's fair to say that Pirsig is NOT
> > >> offering
> > >> theism or objectivity. James, Dewey, and Pirsig are quite explicit in
> > >> their
> > >> rejection of SOM and even James, the most religion-friendly of the
> > three,
> > >> wrote his Varieties of Religious Experience in order to DISPUTE the
> > >> religious claims made by Royce.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From the Stanford Encyclopedia:
> > >>
> > >> "Royce and James had always disagreed deeply concerning the proper
> > >> understanding of religious phenomena in human life. When James
> delivered
> > >> the Gifford Lectures in 1901 and 1902, he directed many arguments
> > against
> > >> Royce's idealism, though he did not there target his friend by name.
> > >> James's lectures, published as The Varieties of Religious Experience,
> > were
> > >> a popular and academic success . Royce believed that James, who had
> > never
> > >> been regularly affiliated with an established church or religious
> > >> community, had in that work placed too much emphasis on the
> > extraordinary
> > >> religious experiences of extraordinary individuals. Royce's first
> > >> education
> > >> was into a strongly Protestant world view, he always retained a
> respect
> > >> for
> > >> the conventions of organized Christianity, and his writings exhibit a
> > >> consistent and deep familiarity with Scripture. He sought a philosophy
> > of
> > >> religion that could help one understand and explain the phenomena of
> > >> ordinary religious faith as experienced by communities of ordinary
> > people.
> > >> There was a deeper difference between them, as well, and it centered
> on
> > a
> > >> metaphysical point. Royce's 1883 insight concerning the Absolute was
> at
> > >> bottom a religious insight. Contrary to the open-ended pluralism and
> > >> pragmatism of James, Royce was convinced that the object and source of
> > >> religious experience was an actual, infinite, and superhuman being."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Since Pirsig was suspicious of James for trying to sneak religion in
> > >> through the back door into philosophy, imagine what he'd think of
> > Royce's
> > >> "respect of the conventions of organized Christianity" and his stance
> > >> "contrary to the open-ended pluralism and pragmatism of James".
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Like I keep saying, trying to make this Idealistic religious fanatic
> > into
> > >> a Pirsigian is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.
> Why,
> > >> why, why does John keep preaching this nonsense against all evidence
> and
> > >> reason? This covert theism is bullshit and cannot be sustained
> without a
> > >> huge dose of dishonesty, or ignorance, or both.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It's fine if a person insists on being an Idealist, an Absolutist, or
> a
> > >> advocate of conventional Christianity but it makes no sense to paint
> > >> Pirsig
> > >> or Pragmatism in these colors. The keys concepts of these two opposed
> > >> views
> > >> will crash into each other like two trains heading in opposite
> > directions.
> > >> It's worse than a pointless waste of time because, frankly, it's so
> > >> obviously stupid. It makes me sad and angry that John is allowed to
> > >> continue raining his bullshit on Pirsig and James.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 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."