From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 21 2003 - 20:23:23 BST
Matt says:
> I want to simply suggest that people read Rorty as placing values at the
center of his philosophy. I don't have the energy or spirit to argue for
this anymore, but I have in the past, though nobody believes me. I believe
the issue between Rorty and Pirsig is not values, but metaphysics. If you
value metaphysics greater than values, then you'll discount Rorty wholesale.
But if you value values, then you'll find some use for him.
DM: In fact, he places values above philosophy, he expects our great artists
to have more to say about values
than philosophy does, and as values feed on empathy this is probably true.
Rorty fears absolute/dogmatic style truth
because he fears that such fundamental truth may be used to place the value
of truth over mere human lives. An
honourable fear. Perhaps truth can only belong to individuals, true for me,
but only maybe-true for you. For me, Rorty
is dead right to attack the sort of metaphysics he does attack, Pirsig's
hope, of course, is to do a new kind of metaphysics,
that values the individual as the being most potentially full of
transcendence, what a strange being an individual is.
The best role that a new metaphysics could play is to find a way to
popularise the exclusion of bas metaphysics, i.e.
metaphysics that undermines the value of value and quality and ethics and
life, etc, i.e. the metaphysics of dualism,
appearently the metaphysics of non-dualism is raising its head in European
philosophy. But how to be clear and popular,
Pirsig has made the best start to date I feel. But still too hard for most,
especially in Lila. But, then again, maybe popular
culture has had its day, perhaps high culture is the new popular culture,
you've got to go somewhere new if you can kick
the mind-numbing alternative forms of entertainment/drugs/loss of
consciousness. At least someone from my background
would never in the past have discovered the benefits of knowledge -but not
so now. The information is out there, although
cutting through the rubbish is some task.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: MD Truth
> Mark said:
> I do not discount the possibility that this formula may be encapsulated by
Rorty, but as Rorty does not use a value lead metaphysical framework, i
should need a great deal of convincing before valuing it.
>
> Matt:
> I want to simply suggest that people read Rorty as placing values at the
center of his philosophy. I don't have the energy or spirit to argue for
this anymore, but I have in the past, though nobody believes me. I believe
the issue between Rorty and Pirsig is not values, but metaphysics. If you
value metaphysics greater than values, then you'll discount Rorty wholesale.
But if you value values, then you'll find some use for him.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Oct 21 2003 - 20:27:00 BST