Re: MD NAZIs and Pragmatism

From: jhmau (
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 20:22:04 GMT

  • Next message: Matt the Enraged Endorphin: "RE: MD NAZIs and Pragmatism"

    On 12 Feb 2003 2:35 PM "Matt the Enraged Endorphin" writes:

    > Scott, Kevin,
    > As Kevin's already correctly assumed, I do agree with the general thrust
    > what Scott says. I think the confusion is that I think the "absolutist"
    > interpretation of the MoQ, which Scott, Kevin, Jonathan, and I all eschew,
    > is a very reasonable interpretation with ample evidence. So, I, too,
    > wish that we grasp the MoQ as one context among many, not as the ultimate
    > context from which answers can be churned out from, but I refrain from
    > saying that it can't be turned towards absolutist ends.
    > The main part where Scott and I disagree is that I think part of what
    > the absolutist interpretation some of its ammo is the use of metaphysics
    > describe what we are doing when using Pirsigian language. Pace Scott and
    > Wim, I don't think metaphysics can be usefully rehabilitated. I think
    > if the Metaphysics of Quality doesn't suffer from Dewey's attack, then it
    > can no longer be usefully described as a Metaphysics. Contra Scott, I
    > don't think metaphysics is something that is inescapable. Whereas Scott
    > would co-opt Sellars' definition of philosophy and conflate it with
    > metaphysics, I would say that Pirsig (at his best, pace Platt and Scott)
    > and Rorty are doing philosophy, but not metaphysics.
    > So, I like it when Kevin calls Lila an "open diary." It is exactly the
    > image I think we need to foster of Lila and the MoQ. Pirsig wrote out his
    > at times quite metaphysical approach to coping with the problems of being
    > an American in a globalizing world and we look on and pick up the tools we
    > like from it, the private tools that turn out to be relevant to us. If it
    > turns out that some of Pirsig's tools towards private self-perfection end
    > up having public use, then we can literalize them and set them to work.
    > But only time will tell on this count, and my bet is against it.

    > Matt

    Hi Matt, Scott, Kevin, Jonathan and All,

    One of the tools Persig writes about are anecdotes leading me to the
    conclusion that I know reality through an instinctive sensing. To me he
    argues conclusively that SOM in its theory of knowledge called abstraction
    created a subjective-objective division in existence. I followed SOM and
    had a basic error in my thinking.

    An absolute is something I cannot divide but only negate. In my attempts to
    put together a theory of knowledge based on instinct I see three absolutes
    which cannot be divided.

    The wrong division of existence in SOM is unacceptable. A wrong division of
    purpose by posing a material and spiritual reality with different purposes
    makes the statement "I act!" not understandable. Dynamic Quality is
    undefined and indivisible.

    An instinct sensing reality seems to me to be a mystical faculty since in
    its action it is outside my awareness.

    Static quality as a pattern has a connection to my awareness and memory as
    well as to my instinct. Sq is not an absolute. Quality is indivisible. A

    The moral orders proposed by Persig seem to me to participate in existence,
    quality, and purpose differently. I propose three brains for the different
    instincts with one awareness.

    I will keep pondering.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 13 2003 - 20:21:35 GMT