From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 26 2003 - 17:13:21 GMT
Matt, Erin and all:
Matt said:
This may seem an odd thing to say, but it is, I believe, what Campbell is
saying in the passages Erin gave. Campbell then says that "believers" take
metaphors as facts and atheists as "lies." I'm not sure how to interpret
what he means, but here's a stab: he's saying that believers think that
metaphors have cognitive meaning (and are therefore important) and atheists
don't think they have cognitive meaning (and are therefore unimportant).
If what he means is something along the Davidsonian lines I drew above
(which I think he might given "God is a metaphor for that which trancends
all levels of intellectual thought."), then Campbell would say the fact/lie
distinction should be blurred. Metaphors don't have cognitive meaning, but
that doesn't mean they aren't important. In fact, metaphors are essential
for evolving better linguistic tools for coping with reality.
DMB says:
Cognitive meaning? I honestly don't know what that means. In any case,
Campbell is saying something very simple here. Trying to grasp it in terms
of pragmatism is like trying to grasp poerty in terms of physics. Its only
bound to confound. He's only saying that metaphors are NEITHER facts NOR
lies. He's saying that the believer and the atheist are equally mistaken
about what a metaphor is. They are both taking the metaphor literally, which
is to misunderstand metaphor as a form of expression. For example, the
statement "we're all god's children" is neither a fact nor a lie, it is a
symbolic statement that refers to spiritual and psychological realities.
Matt said:
So, to say that pragmatists think metaphors a lie, I think, is to
misunderstand what they are saying about metaphysics (and James well known
defence of believers). Pragmatists don't like metaphysics because it
typically banks on a distinction that forces us to chase after an Absolute
Truth. When we make a distinction between appearance and reality, then we
will be constantly be trying to pull back appearances to get at reality.
Pragmatists don't want to make that distinction. They simply want to cope
with their experiences and environment (or enjoy them, as the case may be).
DMB says:
Huh? How in the world did you get from metaphors to metaphysics in a single
sentence? Surely, they are two entirely different things.
Matt said:
Pragmatists, as I've been presenting them, have no problem with the
metaphor "Quality." They do have a problem with the degenerate activity
that Pirsig calls the Metaphysics of Quality. "Quality is reality" is a
metaphor because it doesn't make any literal sense. As soon as we
literalize it, we hypostatize it as a metaphysical chess piece. I've been
urging that we follow the pragmatists in resisting this.
DMB says:
If "Quality" and "Quality is reality" are metaphorical expressions, then
they can't rightly be taken literally and so there is no "metaphysical chess
piece". There is no reason to resist it, because it doesn't exist except in
the minds of those who misunderstand it as a fact or a lie. It is neither,
so there's no problem. See?
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 : Sun Jan 26 2003 - 17:16:11 GMT