[MD] still going?

[John Carl]

Adrie,



On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Adrie Kintziger <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To john carl
>
> I still remember the part you mention about the position i took in the
> James/Royce discussion.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.



Jc:  Ok, thanks for that.  Explaing the reasons behind your
conclusions is helpful towards understanding.

  I've seen the SEP thrown around here a lot as some kind of final
answer, but the fact is, and widely aknowledged, that there's been
huge dearth of scholarship on Royce until very recently.   Also, there
has been a wrong-headed academic bias at work which Pirsig enthusiasts
ought to appreciate since his philosophical contributions have also
been denigrated by that same community.

 I found out about through the work of two scholars, Randall Auxier
and Dwayne Tunstall, whom I got to meet in person, the nature of the
mistake that's been made about Royce's thought and further, the
mistake that James himself made.  I've learned a great deal since I
first found my enthusiasm for Royce in the library that day some... 9
years ago?  sheesh.  I'm a slow learner.

So here is what chaps my ass -  My interest in Royce came before I got
academic support for my interpretation of Royce's metaphysics.   I
understood intuitively when I read him that He was on the same
metaphysical mountaintop as Pirsig, just having taken a different
route.  I understood it because of the emotional response I had  to
Royce's emotional response to the same problems that bugged  Pirsig -
the way they'd both wrestled with the same problem and came to such
concordant solutions.  This really should not be surprising when
according to Bruce Kuklick and Randal Auxier both, Royce and James
agree on their metaphysics 95%.  Since Pirsig himself found passage
after passage of agreement with James, it shouldn't be so shocking or
strange that I found passages of agreement between Royce and Pirsig.
But when I came to this discuss with my discoveries, instead of
support or enquiry I was shut down.  For some reason I didn't fit in
with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Dogmatic Authority, and so not
worthy of further discussion or interest.  wtf, man?

First, I was deigned to be "un-academic" , that is, not having
sufficient credentials or authority backing me up and then when I GOT
the academic cred to back up my position (Carbondale is more of an
authority on American Pragmatism than Stanford, any day)  I was
ignored and vilified as a troll.  So I got my nose all bent outta
shape.  But I feel much better now, having got this off my chest.

>
>
>
> Pff,......peak oil? I had to look it up on wiki. Apparently it is not a
> form of oil
> in the physikal way, but a model, a theory about marketing oilproduction.
> see wiki "peak oil".
>
> What i do remeber is that i'm opposed to fracking and in situ leaching on
> shaleoil bearing layers under the bedrock.I always did.Its a bad tech and
> i'v
> seen examples here in Holland;nope,bad way , the fracking way.
> But i think it is not indecent to oppose to fracking.Probably we were
> talking about that in the past , given your coining this peak oil lead.

Maybe I had you confused with some other northern european whose name
starts with an "a".  There's so many, I might have lost track.

The only thing I know for certain, is that what is deemed certain is
not.  At one time it seemed that $100/barrel oil was with us to stay
for the forseeable future, but the future is not forseeable and if
fracking made the Saudi's try to break the oil companies' back by
lowering the price to ridiculous thresholds... well, it's an ill wind
that doesn't blow SOME good.  The fact is, the world is a lot more
complicated than any of us could have believed and I have to respect
Royce's insight on the significance of error, that rang my bell in
that library so long ago - no matter how sure we are, we could always
be wrong.

Knowing this, let us deal in humility and openess with one another.

Thanks,

John