Hi Dave, Glove, others,
Great post Dave. I don't know that much about Pragmatism and this is a good
start. However, I guess that many quotes about Power aren't necessarily
Pragmatism viewpoints. The comparison between Pragmatism and the MoQ
you made, is more usefull to our discussion.
To avoid confusion I want to start of with a definition of Pragmatism. Again I translated
this (probably badly), so don't shoot me this time and give a better definition when
this one is unsatisfying:
"Pragmatism: The philosophical way of thinking that connects all knowledge and
philosophy directly to life, acting and practice".
Dave started to investigate the claim from Pirsig that
> "The Metaphysics of Quality is a continuation of the mainstream of twentieth
> century American philosophy" (Pragmatism)
He finds that . . .
> ... there are some striking discords between the two. The big one is that by and
> large, pragmatism has either rejected or at the very least avoided METAPHYSICS.
[...]
> It's ACTION that counts. John Dewey's " Act first, think afterward" is still alive as
> indicative in a recent "Wired" interview of an Internet CEO who's successful
> corporate philosophy is quoted as "Ready, Shoot, Aim" Metaphysics is seen as
> an impediment to experience, or practically dealing with experience, a
> distraction from reality.
I agree with you Dave that this is a discord. I even think that this discord is so
big that Pirsig's claim above, can never be true. Is it not the METAPHYSICS of Quality
Pirsig's talking about? The strength of the MoQ for me lies exactly in the fact that
the good way of acting is based upon metaphysical grounds.
Dave wrote:
> "This is why he [Dewey] has no one ontology. Does this make Dewey an
> idealist? Surely not, for an idealist indeed has an exclusive ontology of some
> sort, usually the contents of consciousness. But he surely is no realist. What
> then is he? He rests outside the realist/idealist polarity, for he rejects the
> terrain on which this polarity is grounded. This is why he is a pragmatist-"
> If as Pirsig claims he is a pragmatist it would seem that we could substitute
> Pirsig for Dewey in the above and resolve the issue.
I think you're right that Pirsig can be substituted in the part about rejecting the
realist/idealist polarity. As I wrote in my other posts I think that there are far to
many angles to the terms Realist and Idealist. Pirsig is 'pragmatic' in the sense
that he doesn't enter this ambiguous arena by claiming to be either one.
Pirsig can NOT be substituted in the first part of your quote above. In my opinion
the MoQ is an ontological Metaphysics and not only that, it is primarily a Moral
Metaphysics. I agree with the Pragmatists that being moral is in the end in the
way you ACT (behave), but this acting must be based on something more than
your primary urge.
Hope to have made some sense
Walter
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:55 BST