Re: MD No to absolutism

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 13:41:35 GMT

  • Next message: Patrick van den Berg: "RE: MD No to absolutism"

    Matt:
     
    > I'd like to add this to this discussion of "absolute."
    >
    > As I see it there are two interpretations of Pirsig on "absolute": the
    > Kantian one and Hegelian/historicist one. They both have textual support,
    > so I would identify this as a tension in Pirsig's writing. The Kantian
    > interpretation (which Platt would favor) emphasizes the need for a
    > foundation upon which we can build beliefs. These beliefs then, because
    > they are built on an absolute, universal platform, can be viewed as
    > absolute and universal after all the kinks in logic have been worked out.
    > This is the Platonic chase for absolute certainty that Descartes took on,
    > Hume gave up on, and Kant solidified in its modern form.
    >
    > The Hegelian/historicist interpretation (which pragmatists favor)
    > emphasizes Pirsig's constuction of an evolutionary platform. Our platform
    > evolves. Because it changes, each "foundation" for our beliefs is
    > provisional and can't really be taken in an absolute, universal sense. This
    > is Hegel's great appreciation of contingency. I say "Hegelian/historicist"
    > rather than simply "Hegelian" because Hegel himself equivocated on
    > historicism in a way when he posited an end telos to history: Absolute
    > Mind/Spirit [depending on translation].
    >
    > Pirsig can be read as a Hegelian and Pirsig recognizes that when he says,
    > "Psychology Today said he was a follower of Hegel." He repudiates part of
    > this comparison when he says, "It [the Metaphysics of Quality] adds that
    > this good is not a social code or some intellectualized Hegelian Absolute.
    > It is direct everyday experience." I interpret this as his eschewment of
    > Hegel's equivocation and Kant's foundation. Our "foundation" is experience
    > i.e. a contingent, changing context.

    Excellent analysis. Thanks. Indeed I am a foundationalist, although I
    have many problems with Kant, especially his "noumenon." But I
    disagree with your conclusion. The MoQ foundation is
    experience=reality=Quality. "Contingent, changing context" is
    secondary, a derivative from pre-intellectual pure experience. "It
    (Quality) is the primary empirical reality from which such things as
    stoves and heat and oaths and self (and contexts) are later intellectually
    constructed." (5) Parens added.

    Platt

    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 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 10 2003 - 13:47:37 GMT