From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 17:38:58 GMT
Matt, Paul, et al,
This is not directly a response to this post, but to my perplexity at the
whole argument. On the one hand, I can't see why the defenders of the MOQ
are resisting the pragmatist charge that the MOQ contains an
appearance/reality distinction. If the MOQ is (among other things) a
philosophy of mysticism, then it *must* display an A/R distinction, since
that is what mysticism (and religion in general) is all about. Whether it is
the Buddhist Ignorance ('avidhya'), the Vedantin Maya, or the Christian
Original Sin, the whole point of mysticism is to inform us ignorant, deluded
sinners that we are out of touch with Reality, and to provide indications of
sorts for getting back in touch.
On the other hand, the point (among others) of Rortian pragmatism (more
accurately, his materialism) is to get rid of the last traces of religion in
public discourse, and in particular, in philosophy. Since most of Rorty's
argumentation is directed against other materialists, he rails against A/R
distinctions because of the hint of "ontotheology" that they evince. Well, I
would agree with him that if one is a materialist, then one should be on
guard against A/R distinctions. But if one isn't, then A/R distinctions is
what immaterialism is all about, given that the "natural attitude" at this
time is of a de-godded nature.
However, a mystical A/R distinction is not quite the same sort of thing as
the kind of A/R distinction that pragmatists object to. The latter leads to
notions of philosophy, or science, leading asymptotically to an accurate
representation of reality, and it is these notions that pragmatism
(rightfully, IMO) rejects. However, some mystical philosophy also rejects
such notions, though not, or at least not clearly, the MOQ. Hence, there is
a legitimate pragmatist critique of the MOQ. One such is a critique of the
MOQ's claim of being empirical. I've addressed this in a companion post in
the "Kantian problematic" thread.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 2:50 PM
Subject: RE: MD Them pesky pragmatists
> Paul,
>
> I would like to first focus on your last statement in your reply to my
> foolish questions:
>
> I asked:
> Okay, so I ask myself, "Am I on a Quality path? Is my cross-examination
of
> Pirsig's philosophy going in the right direction? Am I really detecting
an
> appearance/reality distinction unbeknownst to Pirsig or his mainline
> interpreters?"
>
> Answer: "Oh yeah, absolutely."
>
> How does one respond to that?
>
> Paul said:
> Well, what you are saying is that you associate quality with the idea that
> there is "an appearance/reality distinction unbeknownst to Pirsig or his
> mainline interpreters." Therefore, one says, "Great, then you are already
> certain about what Quality is."
[snip]
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 28 2005 - 18:10:51 GMT