Re: MD The MOQ implies that there is more to reality than DQ & SQ.

From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 30 2005 - 20:56:01 BST

  • Next message: mark maxwell: "MD Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary ontology as harmony."

    Ham,

    I know you're sincere and honest in your efforts. What I'm trying to
    suggest is that you just need to try a different tact with some people, like
    me. You need to be having a different kind of conversation with them. You
    sum up exactly our differences by saying incredulously, "Surely there is
    something to be said for the concept considered apart from the semantics."
    No, no there isn't in a Wittgensteinian view of philosophy, which both Sam
    and I explicitly hold, and I think is at the least implicit in Pirsig and
    part of why any self-described Pirsigian has trouble taking much of what you
    say about Essentialism seriously. We are on two very different pages here.

    The extent that I appear close-minded and thrust you into a historical
    cubby-hole is the same extent that you appear close-minded by thrusting me
    into a conceptual cubby-hole. I think you're a Cartesian relic and you
    think I'm a frivolous nihilist. That's not the problem. That's inevitable.
      If we assume we've both explored the general outlines of each other's view
    of philosophy (in some form or other, if not literally the other person's),
    then its understandable that we won't really have many nice things to say
    about each other's view. That's why I generally don't say anything in the
    conversations you have. I stay out of the way so you can have the kind of
    conversation you want to have, which would be different if I said anything.
    But we can still try and have a conversation about the choice between these
    differing views, about how we view what we are doing.

    And that's the conversation I don't know how to have with you because I've
    been _trying_ to have that conversation with you whenever we do end up
    conversing. Every time I try, you disarm me with your philosophical
    convictions. I mostly consider it a matter of style that I lace my writings
    with a certain level of historical understanding, but its a style that is
    me. I'm not sure how not to be me. However, you take all the little bits
    that make me up, using whatever terms come to hand (like "redescription"),
    name-dropping, historical allusions, and say that they are obscuring the
    real me. No--this is it. I haven't been doing a fancy dance all this time,
    trying to avoid divulging what my real convictions and values are--I've been
    trying to enunciate what its like to be me. I've been telling you my
    convictions and values.

    You think everybody's closed you out without hearing you out, but what do
    you expect? Does everybody have time to listen to everybody's proposal for
    such-and-such? No, you make choices about your time and energy. Again, its
    inevitable, but not only that, its required. What's alive and what's dead
    in philosophy is largely what makes up a worldview. Not everything can be
    alive at the same time. If it were, you wouldn't be able to do anything.
    So, for my own part, I don't read your proposals about Essentialism because
    your entire project gets off on the wrong foot from my perspective. The
    only way to pursue any line of inquiry is to close the other ones off. For
    instance, you don't doubt "that conscious awareness, unlike anything else in
    the experienced world, is proprietary to the individual." In fact, that is
    self-evident to you. Eliminating that as a candidate for doubt allows you
    to develop the rest of your philosophy. More fundamentally, it is your
    conviction, your lack of doubt in the difference between concepts and words
    that allows you to get your whole project off the ground. You don't doubt
    that there is distinction between concepts and words and I don't doubt that
    there isn't. Our philosophical activity go off in different directions.
    However, if that is something like a basic difference, we can have a
    conversation about that difference. That conversation would basically be
    the two of us trying to _cast_ doubt on the other person's conviction in the
    converse, philosophically enabling belief.

    Matt

    _________________________________________________________________
    Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
    http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

    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 Sep 30 2005 - 21:00:51 BST