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

From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 03 2005 - 16:33:01 BST

  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD Rhetoric"

    Ham,

    Ham said:
    So you're a Wittgensteinian. It figures. He's the one philosopher I never
    could fathom, and whose prodigious logical equations (if that's what they
    were) were beyond my comprehension. I decided early on that whatever he was
    trying to say was not important enough (to me at least) to try to understand
    it.

    Matt:
    Fair enough. However, you were talking about the Wittgenstein of the
    Tractatus. This is the early Wittgenstein (who is actually a bit closer to
    your Essentialism then I am). The Wittgenstein that Sam and I favor is the
    later Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations.

    Ham said:
    As an alternative, maybe you could demonstrate (by quotes or you own
    analysis) in what way you believe Wittgensteinianism "is at the least
    implicit in Pirsig." It could explain why I'm having trouble understanding
    him, too.

    Matt:
    When I said that, I was referring to the fact that you seem to make a
    concept/word distinction, that our concepts are different from the words
    used to express them. Wittgenstein teaches us that there isn't anything
    more to our concepts than words. One can't point to or express a concept in
    anything but words, so it is quite unclear how one could cash in on the
    distinction between them.

    I find this implicit in Pirsig with his idea of static intellectual
    patterns. Language, for Pirsig, are static patterns of usage. They form a
    web that produces meaning. There's no distinction in Pirsig between
    conceptual patterns and language patterns in Pirsig, all we have are
    intellectual patterns. If this is the case, then having a certain
    conceptual structure is a matter of learning or being educated in a certain
    web, or static pattern, of use, rather than, as in you, a matter of
    discovering the single set of concepts behind learned language (whatever
    language it might be).

    Ham said:
    But if you can provide an explanation for the above [Tractatus selections]
    that makes any sense to me, I may gain some insight as to where you're
    coming from and, possibly, how to frame my statements in a way that you can
    better understand me.

    Matt:
    No, Ham, you still don't get it. I understand your statements very well. I
    understand the conceptual moves you are making. Its just that I happen to
    _reject_ them. And the thing I continually see you doing is seeing the
    moves I'm making and thinking that they're analogous to the ones you make.
    They aren't, though. Its is more like we are playing two different games.
    You finally say, "I don't think it's possible that I can discuss philosophy
    with someone of your mindset." That's what I've been trying to tell you.
    If you take the extent of philosophy to be the game _you're_ playing, then
    indeed it will impossible for us to talk about philosophy. But there are
    connection points between our two "games." The reason for this is because
    one usually only comes to be playing the kind of game I play by way of
    rejecting the game you play. So learning why I've "latched on to a
    mathematician/psychologist who claims there can be no such thing as a
    theory" would indeed be to learn why I've rejected the game you play, it
    would be to learn the reasons and arguments for leaving that game behind.
    Those reasons are everywhere in all of my posts to you. Every time I engage
    you I'm giving you reasons for rejecting the whole game you're playing. I
    do that because that's the _only_ way for me to engage you. And that's why
    I mainly stay out of your way, so you can just play your game and not have
    someone over your shoulder constantly telling you why you shouldn't play the
    game.

    Matt

    _________________________________________________________________
    Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
    http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/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 : Mon Oct 03 2005 - 19:27:18 BST