From: Matthew Stone (mattstone_2000@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 09:41:59 GMT
Platt,
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Foucault imply
> if not say outright
> that "relativity of thought" is a universal while at
> the same time denying
> the existence of universals?
Well you seem to be quite happy to dismiss all of
postmodernism (except Pirsig) with the questionable
notion that this is a paradox, so I guess we're just
going round in circles here. Foucault never denies
the existence of 'all universals', as I said before,
only that the idea of a continuous, accurate continuum
of thought is a myth (in fact, I don't know what the
big deal is with these 'universals' anyway to be
honest: they seem to merely be a way of
over-simplifying the inherent complexity in postmodern
analysis). But I state it again, that there is no
paradox as it is quite possible to use verifiable
historico-analytical methods to show how people think
has changed throughout history. What's wrong with
this? If Foucault's methods of thought must by
implication be relative, does this mean we should
refrain from reading his works? If so, how is thought
to progress in opposition to this stubbornness? Do we
just ignore the great revelations being made in our
understanding, and stick to our nice comfortable
metaphysical lies?
> I think the best definition of
> postmodernism
> > is the realisation that thought is relative, and
> that
> > thought has the ability to turn back on itself and
> > scrutinise itself. Pirsig does this consistently.
>
> There's no insight to saying we possess
> self-consciousness and can
> think about what we're thinking. If that's
> postmodernism, it lays an egg.
> People have been scrutinizing thinking since the
> ancient Greeks.
But everyday thought by everyday people didn't
scrutinise itself in Greek times. Just like SOM in
modernity didn't. I think it's an somewhat ambitious
contention to say the ancient Greeks had an
appreciation of the contingency of the metaphysics
that governed their cognitive activity.
> > And if you contend that Pirsig
> > is not postmodern at all, what do you make of his
> idea
> > of the relativity and interchangeability of
> > metaphysics?
>
> Could you run that by me again with a quotation from
> Pirsig that says
> what I think you're saying? Perhaps you're referring
> to his maps
> metaphor?
I'm afraid I don't have either of his books with me at
the moment. But I recall Pirsig saying that the MoQ
isn't superior to the SOM by default, it is merely
Pirsig's proposition that it 'fits' better with
thinking. Is this wrong?
Matt
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
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 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 09:42:34 GMT