[MD] "RMP: Ignoramous or fraud?

Adrie Kintziger parser666 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 3 12:22:58 PDT 2016 

no trouble at all; in this sense, and yes a lot of the presented
work(whitehead) seems to be capable of serving as a cascade of
justifications,justifications that are maybe of great value in regard of
their
presented content.;; we should perhaps examine...the similarities,and the
projections that are embedded.
But i do not appreciate deity-hunting, or varmint hunting.

What if i read all Whiteheads work, to find an audience consisting out of
jokers and idiots? ,I'm a retired factory worker, not a scholar.i'm a
hobbyist.
I higly value DMB's considerations about this,and i should like his opinion.

I like to point out at something.i was reading DMB's argumentation towards
tuukka, and it made me understand , once again,thta i understand everything
he says, and i understand his level of expertise, and the knowledge database
in his mind , but i cannot level out with him. He's way to clever.

It is a too difficult wave to surf ,if DMB does not like to surf it.Or Dan,
or Arlo.
or...




2016-11-03 19:47 GMT+01:00 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:

> 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."
> 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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list