----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt the Enraged Endorphin" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
I like music. The old Latin chants, hymns, new melodies are a connection to
many. I am RC. Crusades and Inquisitions. The scientific method looks to
experience for truth. Experience is of something outside of you (real
existence). Whatever exists inside of you, apart from your physical body is
uprovable and only accessible to you as an individual (intentional
existence). Communication by defined words is trustworthy but not certain.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the end of life on earth. SOM developed with fits
and starts over 2,000 years.
Persig pointed: look closely at your experience. Quality is value! I am
certain of DQ, I am certain of Existence, I am certain of existing Purpose.
I will use a phrase MoQ. From a change in the theory of knowledge it will
take many years for a new metaphysics to develop. In the social order I
use communication by defined words (static quality). I can evolve to
intellect: communication only by metaphor, a pointer to certain experience
which I experience when I lower my awareness threshold to the new experience
(existence, existing purpose). There is a process to the certainty needed
for action: rhetoric, a salesman, revelation. I act. A new morality and
maybe we will continue to exist.
Joe
>Rorty describes two kinds of people: metaphysicians and
> ironists. An ironist (1) "has radical and continuing doubts about the
> final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by
> other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has
> encountered; (2) she realizes that argument phrased in her present
> vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts; (3) insofar
as
> she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her
> vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a
> power not herself." (Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity) The opposite of
> irony is common sense and common sense is the watchword of metaphysicians.
> Metaphysicians take terms in their final vocabulary as refering to
> something real that has an essence. They see the word "truth" in their
> final vocabulary and assume it must refer to something real and essential.
> The ironist sees words in her final vocabulary as contingent to the
> language games she learned as she grew up.
>
> This distinction between ironists and metaphysicians goes hand in hand
with
> my belief that Rorty desires a proliferation of vocabularies. When a
> metaphysician enters into conversation with a metaphysician, their final
> vocabularies are pitted against each other so that each metaphysician
> attempts to make the other accept her own final vocabulary as being real
> and essential. Ideally, only one final vocabulary is left standing after
> an engagement. When two ironists enter into conversation, the result is a
> playful exchange in which vocabularies are thrown about so that both will
> have hopefully learned something from the exchange. Its an exchange of
> insights about your own vocabulary and about the vocabulary of others. If
> you enjoy the insight of another, the ironist takes measures to see that
> she can make such an insight and does so by changing her final vocabulary.
>
> It is something that I hope you and I, John, are achieving here.
>
> Matt
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:29 BST