RE: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?

From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 19:07:28 GMT

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?"

    Matt S said:
    It's a lot more than just changing the terms from "substance" to "stable
    pattern of value". Without addressing what that pattern is, it pretty much
    leaves it exactly as it was before. We still seem to have a thing "out
    there" that is exactly the same as substance, but now we call it a pattern
    of value.

    Kevin said:
    Exactly. Herein lies the nexus of Pirsig's position as a pomo &
    metaphysician which seems to spin many readers in circles.....

    Matt:
    I found this last post of yours, Kevin, to be quite good. The string of
    rhetorical questions get at the heart of how to classify Pirsig's
    achievement. You asked, "is it really Metaphysics if you don't offer a
    concrete epistemology?" I think this is the point at which modern
    philosophers will answer "No" and most here will answer "Yes." Since Kant,
    philosophers decided that you needed to do epistemology before you did
    metaphysics. Since the middle of this century, more and more people have
    been coming out against epistemology. They don't think epistemology will
    lead anywhere.

    Pirsig seems to strike the view that you don't need epistemology. It's all
    intuitive. You simply need to systematize your thoughts. As Kevin says,
    "Pirsig is committed to foundations. He's committed to offering a firm
    context for operating." Completing the post-modern turn, however, defuses
    any attempt at firmness. One of the post-modern insights is that our
    soft/hard metaphors aren't working out in metaphysics, just as our ocular
    metaphors aren't working out in epistemology. There isn't a philosophical
    foundation that if not found will lead to the destruction of knowledge as
    we know it. The post-moderns suggest that we eschew these foundational
    metaphors, that the distinction between hard natural sciences and soft
    social sciences is one about overall agreement. They suggest that
    "foundations" of knowledge not be seen as needed at all. That we see the
    conversation we are having now not founded on some bedrock, but floating
    through the air. The only thing keeping the conversation going is us, not
    because we've found a foundation upon which to plant our feet, but because
    we keep flapping our gums.

    Matt

    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 Mar 04 2003 - 19:08:30 GMT