From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 02:03:47 BST
Mark, Matt, Arlo and all:
matt said:
I don't think its helpful at all. In fact, I think the distinction is
distracting in the discussions and can't hold its weight philosophically.
...For Wittgensteinian reasons, I think the social/intellectual distinction
collapses into itself.
msh asked matt:
Since the distinction to me seems quite vivid, and useful, maybe you can
give me an example to help me understand what you are saying. ...How does my
argument distract from the discussion or fail to hold its philosophical
weight? ....What Wittgensteinian reasons? And could you apply them to my
Nuremberg argument, to help me understand what you say is the collapse of
the distinction?
dmb says:
Yep. Those were the same questions I had about Matt's cryptic rejection. I'd
guess he thinks we're playing poker and shouldn't show his cards. I'd guess
he's bluffin'. He's only got a pair of Rortys, at best.
matt said:
When we realize that all there is to the intellectual level is language,
and that language is public and not private, the distinction between the two
blurs.
msh replied:
..., it doesn't follow that there is no distinction between the social and
intellectual levels. Just as not every individual values the concepts of
society, not all human individuals grasp the language of the intellectual
level, regardless of its public availability.
dmb says:
Yep. I'm with Mark here too. Both levels have individual AND collective
dimensions. Every level has individual and collective dimensions. That
simply has nothing to do with the distinction between the social and
intellectual level. The intellectual level has been marked by a rise in the
value of the political rights and personal autonomy, but doesn't define it.
Both levels can be thought individual points of consciousness sharing an
intersubjective space.
But I'd also point out that we can see the distinction in the failure to
create a meta-language. The idea of cleaning up the language can never work
because language is very old and was highly evolved already when philosophy
and intellect was just getting started. And so it seems to me that language
is very much a different creature. Its filled with myths and metaphors so
thoroughly that there is hardly anything else to it. The fact that language
can also be used as an intellectual tool or to create art does not deny its
origins and history, as you seem to be doing.
msh said to matt:
So, in your view, politics replaces the MOQs Intellectual level. You
seem to be saying that politics derives from philosophy, which you
seem to suggest is just another name for the old Intellectual level.
That is, you regard philosophy as a social activity, while politics
is higher up the ladder and in some way emerges from philosophy. I
guess I don't see how this re-ordering of the MOQ's moral hierarchy
offers a better explanation of the world, as I experience it.
dmb says:
Yep. This re-ordering makes little sense to me either. If you add this move
to Matt's previous rejections of metaphysics and Dynamic Quality, the MOQ is
looking mighty slim and tattered. Anything left untouched at this point is
probably trivial, in fact, and I think we should just go ahead and declare
her dead in Matt's hands. By which I simply mean that Matt's views have very
little in common with Pirsig's MOQ. And what little they may share is
relatively unimportant. Or so it seems to me.
Thanks.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 02 2005 - 02:11:29 BST