From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 20 2003 - 21:38:59 GMT
Matt
What status quo do you mean? Human being begins when we ask the question of
Being, before that no being, no human being. You really need to get out more
and read some non-pragmatist philosophy. Come on Bergson, Merleau-Ponty,
Heidegger, Cupitt are calling. Bergson's Matter and Memory is really
someting. A human being is a pile of sand, still an individual is a
particular pile of sand in a particular place collecting more sand and
wondering what all this sand is about and where it comes from. Then again
read this, Whatever happened to Human Nature:
http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper56.html
For the pragmatist, there is no knowldege that is not spelled out,
literally, in a language.
Yeah, knowledge has to have language, but lots of stuff in language is about
stuff that is not language, and language is effected by stuff that is not
language e.g. causality as you would say. Whilst I am very keen on the
sophistication of post-modern language philosophy, Pirsig's ideas could do
with putting in the context of our improved understanding of language and
Derrida's 'differance', I think you are a bit trapped in its confines, and
not willing to get philosophy involved in the messy business of tangling
with lots of other knowledge-language practices. Pirsig's engagement with
MOQ has guts and an impressive range of use in various fields, pragmatists I
feel are skeptical about the possibility of attaining a more unified
approach to knowledge in our current fragmented times.
Matt: And for people who insist on the inescapability of metaphysics, why
should I assume that metaphysics is inescapable? Why should I assume that
all assumptions get at something _really_ real, as opposed to mere
appearance, in the world? If that's not what metaphysics means for you,
then you are performing definitional sleight-of-hand on the pragmatist. If
"metaphysics" is simply a stand-in for "assumptions," then pragmatism
doesn't have an implied metaphysics: its as explicit as anybody else's
DM: My assumption is simply that we can throw out the appearance-reality
distinction, and I just do not feel inclined to say that that is the end of
metaphysics, I can't see why metaphysics implies only ideas about reality
that assume the A-R distinction. It is very false to say all philosophy and
metaphysics is SOM based. This is a too-strong reading of the tradition. MOQ
says we start with reality=everything and we do not use A-R distinction and
we then move on to trying to analyse experience and we propose SQ/DQ as a
possible first division. In a way I am not sure you have really grasped the
SQ/DQ distinction. I suggest Heidegger as a more complete argument of this
than Pirsig, and with more in depth examination of the consequences of
overcoming the SOM tradition. Heidegger of course also steps beyond language
to say that Being speaks Man and also that man world's the world. This is to
be less anthropomorphic than Rorty, and this is my point about the science
experiment as trying to get close to the sense that what occurs in an
experiment is a crucible that involves not only man and language but also
Being or better still Be(com)ing. It is the encounter with Be(com)ing that
makes existence a strange and amazing thing, rather than just the common
sense existence of the pragmatist. Pragmatism is an asceticism I suggest,
Nietzsche style. Try my reading list above for a bit of extra fun. Roy
Bhaskar is the current critical realist advocate I have in mind.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?
> David,
>
> David said:
> Rorty does not want to touch on anything on the other side of language,
such as Being. And even Pirsig holds back because he does not want Quality
to open up the question of something divine/holy. But it is not human to
hold off of this question.
>
> Matt:
> How do we know what it is to be human? As far as I can tell, if you
follow Pirsig and the pragmatists, there is no essence to humanity, it is
something that was created and has evolved and changed. To say that "it is
not human to hold off of this question" for whatever question, then, is to
suggest that you would like the status quo to continue.
>
> David said:
> Matt, before we experience anything it has to matter to us, we have to
notice it. Language enables there to be a world for Man, but there has to be
a before of langauge. Pragmatism king of accepts this, because it says that
the motive for our talk is practical knowledge. This really is theimplied
metaphysics of pragmatism. It assumes Care/Value/Quality/Use.
>
> Matt:
> Sure, there is something before language. That's an historical or
sociological question. Evolution as a narrative structure helps take the
spell off of language, that's there's something behind language that if we
just knew we'd all be better off. Well, there is something behind language:
non-language using animals attempting to cope with their environment. For
the pragmatist, there is no knowldege that is not spelled out, literally, in
a language.
>
> And for people who insist on the inescapability of metaphysics, why should
I assume that metaphysics is inescapable? Why should I assume that all
assumptions get at something _really_ real, as opposed to mere appearance,
in the world? If that's not what metaphysics means for you, then you are
performing definitional sleight-of-hand on the pragmatist. If "metaphysics"
is simply a stand-in for "assumptions," then pragmatism doesn't have an
implied metaphysics: its as explicit as anybody else's.
>
> 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 : Thu Nov 20 2003 - 21:42:23 GMT