From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 14 2004 - 00:52:55 GMT
Matt. Paul and all MOQers:
Matt said to Paul: (on 3/11 in the MOQ or Idealism of Pragmatism? thread)
Yes, Pirsig says he's creating a metaphysics, but what does that mean to
him? Obviously not what it means to many others. Many of the strongest
adherents here of Pirsig and his use of the term "metaphysics," so I've
found, are not using it as many have in the past which causes certain
conversational difficulties once in a while. So, instead of bickering about
what "metaphysics" means, I pin it down for my own purposes...
dmb says:
Hmmm. "Certain conversational difficulties" have been caused by Pirsig and
his adherents using the word "metaphysics" differently than "many have in
the past"? This observation isn't very far from what I've so unsuccessfully
been trying to tell you. The main difference is that I think the MOQ itself
is different and its not just a matter of word usage. Also, instead of
blaming Pirsig and all his readers, I blame you for the "conversational
difficulties". The problem is not that Pirsig has failed to adopt the
neo-pragmatist, anti-metaphysical definition of the word, the problem is
that you think he should. The futility of ever achieving certain knowledge
of absolute reality, and all that sort of rot, does not apply to the MOQ.
Pirsig makes no such claims and repeatedly insists that his metaphysics is
provisional. Let me get more specific. The comment about "conversational
difficultiies", oddly perhaps, reminded of an exhange between you and Paul
way back in February...
About six weeks ago, Matt axed Paul:
Once you open the door to epistemology, you will recieve an endless barage
of questions like that. "How do you know it has high value? Are you
certain? How can you be certain?" ...How do you _know_ value has reality?
Well, actually, that's the easy question answered by Pirsig. The much more
difficult question is How do you _know_ value is the primary empirical
reality? How do you _know_ Quality is all there is? How do you _know_ it
grounds everything?
...I mean, I hope you just drop all of those stupid questions from above. I
think them quite pointless and my effort in proliferating them is my effort
in trying to persuade you that carrying the mantle of epistemology
and/ontology is not worth the trouble.
Paul replied:
I know you have arrived at a realisation about the ultimate futility of
metaphysics but, once it is accepted that all intellectual knowledge is
provisional and speculative, I think it is still interesting and useful to
examine and set out a system of beliefs and assumptions to see how it fits
together and to try it out against your experience. If you would prefer to
refer to this activity as "philosophy in the broad sense of seeing how
things in a broad sense kind of hang together on weekends" instead of
"metaphysics"
that's OK :-)
dmb says:
I agree with Paul. (And he's much nicer about it than I.) I think Pirsig has
really good answers to all those "stupid" and "pointless" questions. To each
of the "how do you KNOW, how do you KNOW, how do you KNOW" questions, I
imagines Pirsig would reply, "I don't KNOW. Its just an idea based on
experience and lots of other ideas." I'd not only say these questons are
more trouble than they are worth, I'd go even further. I'd say that we'd all
be wise to be cautious about people who claim they KNOW anything with
absolute certainty. So again, this is pretty close to what I've been trying
to say. Except that you want Pirsig and his adherents to abandon these
"stupid" and "pointless" questions, while I want you to stop pretending that
he hasn't already done that. Its not that different from the way you try to
read Pirsig's "primary empirical reality" as some kind of foundationalism.
But like I said, a Dynamic foundation makes as much sense as a liquid
cornerstone. And it is probably Pirsig's mysticism that makes his MOQ so
completely INCOMPARABLE to any SOM. The neo-pragmatist's anti-metaphysical
critique makes no sense when applied to the MOQ. I believe this is the
source those "conversational difficulties". I'd say they were conceptual
difficulties. I'd also guess that, to you, it's the same thing. In any case,
I just think it doesn't fit. You know, square peg, round hole and all that.
And since this forum is dedicated to the discussion of Pirsig's metaphysics,
I think its only reasonable to allow the participants to use the word
"metaphysics" as Pirsig does. The implication that Pirsig and his readers
are the cause of the confusion is quite over-the-top. I actually laughed.
Matt, dude, you have a set of stones bigger than Rushmore. Where'd you get
'em?
Thanks,
dmb
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 : Sun Mar 14 2004 - 00:56:03 GMT