[MD] "RMP: Ignoramous or fraud?

[John Carl]

Adrie,

Yes I'd sincerely like to discuss Whitehead.  I find the following very
interesting -

To reiterate the intro to Religion in the Making:

"the intriguing passage quoted above suggest several important aspects of
Whitehead's philosophical thinking about the reality and metaphysical
significance of value (here termed 'quality') and reveals one the central
objectives of the present text.  First, the sentence manifests Whitehead's
typical approach to intuitive experience, especially the qualitative and
emotionally clothed dimensions of our immediate contact with reality.
As a corollary to this, Whitehead is implicitly asserting (against much of
the critical tradition in philosophy) that we do in fact,have such
immediate contact and that it can serve as a starting point, if not a
justification, for the kinds of claims made by metaphysicians."

Even before we dive into Whitehead proper, do you have any trouble at all
reconciling the above with the MoQ?  Do you think "such immediate contact"
can serve as a justification for the kinds of claims made by
metaphysicians?

Because I do.  And I think Pirsig would agree.

John


On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Adrie Kintziger <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:

> everybody has the right to ake lots of mistakes, John, even you and me.
> But if it becomes a system/obsessive/compulsive/sad,then somebody should
> take the responsability to tell you.
>
> I have no intention to start John'bashing' or mindfucking.If you like to
> diskuss
> Whitehead along with Pirsig on this list , for comparison and the sake of
> philosophical importance you will not get away with a half quote.
> Maybe horse will not agree,as this is not a Whitehead list, or others might
> disagree, simply because the have no expertise on Whitehead.Like is the
> case with me.
> Do you really understand what you are wishing for? not only i have to
> extensively read Whitehead, i have to find the material in Dutch, or the
> process is to slow.
> I do not refuse it , John, or reject it because you insist on it.....and
> maybe we really should ask David his opinions about it,but if this is to
> fool around
> we are indeed stealing his time and effort.
>
> If you are really honest about this, i will shut up about theism.
> I can make no other promesess.
>
>
>
> 2016-11-02 20:44 GMT+01:00 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:
>
> > Adrie,
> >
> > The quote I provided, I provided word for word from the source - and I
> > cited the source.  It was from the intro to Religion in the Making and
> any
> > editing or selectivity was on the part of the author of the intro, and
> not
> > me.
> >
> > Evidently Whitehead believes that quality drives the creation of
> religions
> > and that this quality is indefinable.  In the MoQ, Quality is also the
> > impetus for both religion and science and art.  I don't think Whitehead
> and
> > Pirsig are too far apart and I think having this theism bugaboo is a
> > serious impediment to your  study of historical philosophers.
> >
> > imho.
> >
> > jc
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Adrie Kintziger <parser666 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anybody?
> > >
> > > As John writes, *between the stars*,
> > >
> > > *There is a quality of life which lies always beyond the mere fact of
> > life;
> > > and when we include the quality in the fact, there is still omitted the
> > > quality of the quality.  (RM 80)* , see the stars? apparently ending
> the
> > > quote or sentence.
> > > The quote is in this form present on wikiquote, without the last part
> of
> > > the concluding sentence of the lecture .The asterisks and the notation
> > "rm
> > > 80" is apparently added by John to make us believe he actually did read
> > the
> > > lecture.
> > > Should he have done so, he should or should have presented it as
> > > follows.(imho).
> > >
> > > Quote from the lecture.
> > > "There is a quality of life which lies always beyond the mere fact of
> > life;
> > > and when we include the quality in the fact, there is still omitted the
> > > quality of the quality. It is not true that the finer quality is the
> > direct
> > > associate of obvious happiness or obvious pleasure. Religion is the
> > direct
> > > apprehension that, beyond such happiness and such pleasure, there
> remains
> > > the function of what is actual and passing, that it contributes its
> > quality
> > > as an immortal fact to the order which informs the world."--
> > > from lecture 2 religion and dogma.
> > >
> > > (this is clearly the correct context,and it is a theistic one), and
> that
> > > does not show on wikiquote or is derivable from the way Johs likes it
> to
> > > appear.
> > >
> > > Now given the above one should also read the whole lecture
> > > to observe that Whitehead is pointing towards a sort of religious
> > quality,
> > > with a quality beyond the quality.A holistic quality probably.
> > >
> > > *most certainly not the Quality from zam or LILA*
> > >
> > > http://www.mountainman.com.au/whiteh_2.htm
> > >
> > > Ignoramous or fraudulent by implication?who is the real f**l?,pun
> > > intended.
> > >
> > > Adrie
> > >
> > >
> > > 2016-10-26 14:36 GMT+02:00 <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>:
> > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > you know, I've always been curious about something Pirsig wrote in
> > ZAMM:
> > > >
> > > > "Some things can be said about Phædrus as an individual:
> > > > He was a knower of logic, the classical system-of-the-system which
> > > > describes
> > > > the rules and procedures of systematic thought by which analytic
> > > knowledge
> > > > may be structured and interrelated. He was so swift at this his
> > Stanford-
> > > > Binet IQ, which is essentially a record of skill at analytic
> > > manipulation,
> > > > was
> > > > recorded at 170, a figure that occurs in only one person in fifty
> > > > thousand."
> > > >
> > > > Where in Pirsig's work does this knowledge manifest? One can have a
> > > higher
> > > > IQ than that and still never have proven a theorem Hilbert-style or
> > with
> > > > natural deduction. And before one has done something like that it's
> > > > unlikely that they could be considered a swift knower of logic.
> > > >
> > > > As a knower of logic, Pirsig could probably tell whether there's a
> > > mistake
> > > > in the Heinous Quadrilemma.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, I didn't even know Whitehead made other than analytic
> > > > philosophy. And funny that Dan just mentioned Gödel and now you
> mention
> > > > this, because Gödel proved Whitehead's and Russell's project -
> > Principia
> > > > Mathematica - to be impossible. Pirsig convinced me of the importance
> > of
> > > > the MOQ but I mightn't have understood undefinability without Gödel.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tuk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lainaus John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    It's got to be one or the other.
> > > >>
> > > >>  Probably not the latter, makes more sense the former.   He himself
> > > >> admited
> > > >> that he wasn't much of a scholarly philosophologist.  And who has
> time
> > > to
> > > >> be?  Academics in their lairs, maybe.  In this busy age life is too
> > big
> > > to
> > > >> keep your nose in books all the time.  So "ignoramous"
> > non-perjorativel
> > > >> then, but the fact is, he DID at least read some AN Whitehead.
> Quotes
> > > him
> > > >> from reading his book on history of philosophy, in the bowels of the
> > > >> troopship.  You'd think he might have followed up on the man's
> > thinking
> > > a
> > > >> bit?
> > > >>
> > > >> All these questions I mumble to myself are bound up in my reading
> the
> > > >> introduction to a book by Whitehead, Religion in the Making,
> starting
> > > with
> > > >> a quote from said book,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> *There is a quality of life which lies always beyond the mere fact
> of
> > > >> life;
> > > >> and when we include the quality in the fact, there is still omitted
> > the
> > > >> quality of the quality.  (RM 80)*
> > > >> Now, dear fellow MoQers, I don't know about you, but that statement
> > > kicks
> > > >> me right in the gut.  Quality?   That's OUR term, right?  What's
> > > Whitehead
> > > >> doing stealing it from us?   In 1926, even.  That takes some
> chutzpah
> > > AND
> > > >> a
> > > >> time machine.
> > > >>
> > > >> The introducer, goes on to say,
> > > >>
> > > >> " Religion in the Making is a book about value.  The intriguing
> > passage
> > > >> quoted above suggest several important aspects of Whitehead's
> > > >> philosophical
> > > >> thinking about the reality and metaphysical significance of value
> > (here
> > > >> termed 'quality') and reveals one the central objectives of the
> > present
> > > >> text.  First, the sentence manifests Whitehead's typical approach to
> > > >> intuitive experience, especially the qualitative and emotionally
> > clothed
> > > >> dimensions of our immediate contact with reality.     As a corollary
> > to
> > > >> this, Whitehead is implicitly asserting (against much of the
> critical
> > > >> tradition in philosophy) that we do in fact,have such immediate
> > contact
> > > >> and
> > > >> that it can serve as a starting point, if not a justification, for
> the
> > > >> kinds of claims made by metaphysicians."
> > > >>
> > > >> That is, Quality cannot be defined, but you KNOW what it is.  And
> THAT
> > > it
> > > >> is.  And this can be a starting point for discussion and logical
> > > >> analysis.   Pirsig and Whitehead seem to be perfectly harmonious,
> > > >> fundamentally,   So was Whitehead an influence on Pirsig's thought?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> OR, did they take separate trails up the same American mountain of
> > > thought
> > > >> and reach the same perspective?
> > > >>
> > > >> Who knows?
> > > >>
> > > >> Anybody?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> JC
> > > >> 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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > 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."