Ah, Squonk,
Sometimes I think you write out responses to people's posts without finishing
their posts. At least, that would explain the 5 or more responses you had to
my original "Confessions" post and the 2 (so far) to this last post. Because
I've received the two at once, I'll just respond to both of them at once.
The first one:
>
> Matt,
> Pirsig would wish for you to forget what he wrote because he cannot tell you
> that which cannot be told.
> So, extending Pirsig is not a good idea; rather one works towards a more
> enlightened being. The real motorcycle is yourself.
>
> All the best,
> Squonk.
That is very zen and I like it. It speaks to the part of me that seeks
quietude. Sometimes the conversation must stop because that which is sought is
something that cannot be spoken of. I think this is one of the principle
things to learn from repudiating the Platonic tradition. The distinctions and
cuts of reality that Western metaphysics makes are those that obscure that
which is sought. They obscure excellence.
The second one, part one:
>
> Metaphysics is the title given to a work by Aristotle which deals with
> cosmogony.
> The work before the Metaphysics explores what nature is, while the
> Metaphysics deals with from whence nature came.
> Today, science deals with nature and other peoples, such as philosophers,
> deal with the from whence bit.
>
> Your suggestion that we can all develop our own exploration of from whence we
> came is all very well, but so many have had a go at it and for so long that
> certain trends have been cropping up along the way. I'm not one for
> reinventing the wheel when there is one turning in front of me.
Interesting little narrative. However, I am attempting to do away with
metaphysics along with other parts of the Platonic tradition. For instance, in
the notion of philosophy that I am advocating, we do away with the "from whence
it came" bit. So what I am suggesting is that we develop tools with which to
deal with the reality around us. We may construct narratives to contextualize
ourselves and "hold our time in thought," but we do not desire to know "true
origins" in the sense of an ahistorical truth. The Platonitc tradition has
outlived its usefulness and we new a new tool kit. So, in a sense, I am in
favor of reinventing the wheel or, rather, I'm in favor of inventing a new kind
of wheel or possibly something that couldn't even be identified as a wheel.
Part two:
>
> Quality.
> As old as the hills and as good a metaphysics as i have ever heard.
> It does for me and it explains more and more with every passing year.
This, I think, is misleading. Quality is not a metaphysics. Quality is an
insight that we use in our vocabularies. It is a metaphor. It is many other
things for many other people, but its misleading to say its a metaphysics
because that implies I and others are in the process of developing a
metaphysic, when that is not necessarily the case.
The rest of your message I am, on the whole, above responding to. I might
mention, though, that I did find it amusing that you think I'm looking for "the
captain's" approval. Gee, and I thought I kinda' got on the captain's
"metaphysical nerves"....
Ah, incorrigible Squonk....
Matt
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:31 BST