Dear Glen,
As for a starting point for communication, I feel we have one
already in "how metaphysics, its applications and action
related". Additionally: would you want to write something about
what spoke to your condition in "Lila" when you read it?
You wrote 16/8 22:34 -0700:
"If a metaphysics doesn't lead to actions or applications then
what distinguishes it from any other system of thought an
individual might be inclined to?".
I suggested 16/8 23:09 +0200 as a distinction between metaphysics
and other systems of thought, that a metaphysics should not vary
with experience where other systems of thought do. I don't think
any system of thought (including metaphysics) leads automatically
to actions or applications. One of the things I tried to explain
12/8 23:13 +0200 is that in my experience it is usually the other
way around: action leads to the deduction of (being part of)
social patterns of value (groups) and to rationalisation of those
social patterns of value by inventing reasons that refer to (are
part of) intellectual patterns of value (systems of thought).
Do you distinguish metaphysics from other systems of thought by
its relation with actions or applications??
I liked Matt's "little Intro to Philosophology" of 31/5
11:21 -0700:
"There are three branches of philosophology: epistemology,
metaphysics, and axiology.
Epistemology deals with the 'How do I know something?' questions.
Metaphysics deals with the 'What is reality?' questions.
Axiology is a little known word that formalises the question of
'What has value?'.
And there you are, the three key words to philosophology that
clue you in to what kind of philosophology you are doing: know,
reality, and value.
The beautiful thing that Pirsig did was make axiology and
metaphysics the same thing. Value is reality"
I think however, Pirsig used the term "metaphysics" in a broader
sense, incorporating all three of Matt's branches of
philosophology (and used the denigrating expression
"philosophology" in yet another sense, but is another story). I
would say: metaphysics = epistemology + ontology + deontology or
"How do we know?", "What can we know?" and "How do we know what
we should do?". Pirsig made "value" (or "quality") the basic
concept of his ontology suggesting that his epistemology ("How do
we know?", "By experiencing value!") was at the same time a
deontology, thereby implying that his ontology was at the same
time an (objective) ethics ("What should we do?")
I don't agree with Pirsig's (suggestion of a) identification of
epistemology and deontology. I think a deontology needs to say
something about the concept of "Meaning". I have written about
that before on this list. I could go deeper into that if you are
interested in this starting point.
Your remark about "Western culture" really is only "responding to
what I write". I sure didn't mean the "Western culture" we have
in common in a sense as broad as including Stalin and Hitler. I
think you should know that I didn't mean that and I hope I don't
need to explain.
With friendly greetings,
Wim Nusselder
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:28 BST