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

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 19:00:23 BST

  • Next message: Matt Kundert: "Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    Hi Matt

    Well you see I would say that an ironist does not
    believe in hard distinctions so that when a metaphysical
    distinction is being made it is a soft distinction but
    being mis-represented as a hard distinction by a
    non-ironist, so that means that there is no meaning to
    soft either really, so we have moved on and as a
    moved on ironist I am quite happy to be a critical
    metaphysician in contrast to a naive one. Get it?
    I mean don't act like a dogmatic ironist please
    You see SOM was poetry all along so an MOQ
    poetry can have just as much multi-disciplinary impact
    as the old SOM, cos it was all done with good old
    metaphors all along.

    DM
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 3:52 PM
    Subject: RE: MD The MOQ implies that there is more to reality than DQ & SQ.

    > David,
    >
    > David said:
    > I pretty much agree with what you say. What different set of terms are you
    > referring to in the last sentence? By the way I think you would dig John
    > Dupre's The Disorder of Things. I really don't care if we see DQ/SQ as a
    > metaphysical distinction or not, but to be trully ironist it counts as a
    > metaphysical distinction because it potentially has the same kind of
    > conceptual impact and territory as subject/object, you never know we might
    > be able to build a more ironist sort of civilisation on it for a couple of
    > thousand years, a map that makes new journeys possible.
    >
    > Matt:
    > I was just referring to the dropping of a certain set of distinctions when
    > explicating, such as the unmediated/mediated distinction when talking
    > about experience or the represents/expresses distinction for language.
    > For language, for instance, we should instead follow Donald Davidson and
    > use something like a meaningless/meaningful (metaphor/literal,
    > unfamiliar/familiar, cause/reason) distinction.
    >
    > I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "to be trully ironist [DQ/SQ]
    > counts as a metaphysical distinction." As far as I can tell, what I said
    > swings free of whether or not a distinction catches on and has a
    > wide-ranging "conceptual impact and territory." A distinction can be
    > either hard or soft to do that. It doesn't matter how the distinction is
    > phrased. And a true ironist wouldn't make hard, metaphysical
    > distinctions, so I'm not sure why you'd throw her in there as making them.
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Tue Oct 04 2005 - 21:19:35 BST