From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 16:23:20 GMT
Matt S:,
> Ok, so you can take it to the level that Foucault's
> primary perceptive capacity is a system of judgement.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Foucault's, yours, mine, everyone's
"primary perceptive capacity" is a "system of judgment." This is Pirsig's
metaphysical revolution in a nutshell.
> But to what extent does this devalue his work? Are
> you saying his appreciation of the relativity of
> thought means he cannot think? That he cannot posit
> ideas that, whilst recognising their own relativity,
> are of great insight?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Foucault imply if not say outright
that "relativity of thought" is a universal while at the same time denying
the existence of universals?
> > PH:
> > So logic and math are formal but not "substantive"
> > or real. Is that your
> > position?
>
> No, it is that *what* we think can be relative and
> contingent, but *how* we think can, in some
> circumstances be taken as ultimately verifiable, e.g.
> maths.
OK, but then I still am confused about the difference between "formal"
and "substantive."
> Thoughts are illusionary in the sense that they give
> the impression they are a pure engagement with
> reality, whereas they are based on all sorts of
> underlying factors and limitations that we don't know,
Many thoughts "engage with reality" rather well, I'd say. Like when your
doctor thinks you might have cancer and runs some tests based on
thoughts about the reality of bodily functions to determine if such is the
case.
> e.g. Foucault's example of the circularity between the
> subject and the object, that doesn't analyse itself.
> This is just as 'real' as Pirsig's intellectual
> patterns. I think the best definition of postmodernism
> is the realisation that thought is relative, and that
> thought has the ability to turn back on itself and
> scrutinise itself. Pirsig does this consistently.
There's no insight to saying we possess self-consciousness and can
think about what we're thinking. If that's postmodernism, it lays an egg.
People have been scrutinizing thinking since the ancient Greeks.
> And if you contend that Pirsig
> is not postmodern at all, what do you make of his idea
> of the relativity and interchangeability of
> metaphysics?
Could you run that by me again with a quotation from Pirsig that says
what I think you're saying? Perhaps you're referring to his maps
metaphor?
Platt
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 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 16:24:47 GMT