Re: MD food for thought

Date: Tue Sep 10 2002 - 17:23:55 BST

In a message dated 9/10/02 2:46:20 PM GMT Daylight Time, writes:

> Squonk,
> I have to keep responding 'cuz you just keep saying good things...
> >> Hi Matt,
>> Yes, maybe we are much closer than the 'nasty' Squonk would have it?
>> In a sense, placing Quality at the centre of a metaphysics destroys the
>> metaphysics?
>> After all, it is something of a contradiction?
>> This contradicting tone continually shocks one into immediacy?
> This "contradictory tone" is exactly what I found when I last toyed with a
> Quality Metaphysics. DQ is seeing reality in a holistic manner and sq is
> seeing reality in parts. But both comprise the whole of Quality.
> Essentialy, 'DQ' and 'not DQ' equals Quality. The logical problem here is
> that it violates the Law of Contradiction, which has violent side-effects
> on those who want to use logic. Once you violate it, you can get any
> proposition you want. There have been a few philosopher's over the years
> who have violated, knowingly, the law of Contradiction (Sartre, for one).
> I think Pirsig is doing the same thing. The shock you get is a shock out
> of intellectualization, out of objectification.
> Though I've subsequently made the so-called linguistic turn (meaning I'd
> rather avoid speaking of "experience" and rather speak of "words" or
> "sentential attitudes"), I think the shake we get from Pirsig is one that
> makes one be quiet. It doesn't make you closer to reality, it just lets
> you see how precariously balanced your tools for coping with reality really
> are and that you should just sit back and enjoy a sunset once in a while.
> Matt

Hi Matt,
I have noted with interest your words and have just been thinking while
cooking before opening this post.
(Did you hear the one about the drug addict who injected curry powder? He
awoke in hospital to be told he had just spent two days in a Korma!)
The way i see it, and i hope this is appropriate? Is that Rorty wishes to
counter, from a professional philosopher's position, the sort of Post
Modernist, 'Nothing exists beyond the narrative' stuff which is the current
overwhelming trend?
But stating there is nothing beyond the narrative is an idealist position
supporting the 'objective' side of the semiotic sign - in other words, Irony.
I must leave you to follow this for yourself, because i find it all a bit
off. I find it a bit off because the bleedin' French got all this stuff going
and you can't argue with a sceptic!!!!!! ;-P
Petite pois Rod-der-nee, PETITE POIS!


Mail Archive -
MD Queries -

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:31 BST