[MD] still going?

Fri Feb 12 23:59:23 PST 2016

 as an aside

I did not write "sunday teacher', but wrote something like 'gives bible
classes in his free time.

Its better to avoid the sunday stance as it has a negative connotation,
like its a form of amateurism,etc...and! i do not want to declare Auxier an
amateur.

Adrie

2016-02-12 20:54 GMT+01:00 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:

> 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."
> 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