Re: MD Rhetoric

From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 16 2005 - 21:02:23 GMT

  • Next message: mark maxwell: "MD Quality, subjectivity and the 4th level"

    Hey Scott,

    Matt said:
    I am _absolutely_ taking advantage of paradox. This is something Scott and
    I disagree about, too. I say that in conversation, when you meet a
    contradiction, a paradox, you make a distinction (I think it was Aquinas who
    first said that). That dissolves the contradiction so you can continue the
    conversation.

    Scott said:
    I think I would like to draw a distinction here, between contradiction and
    paradox on the one hand, and contradictory identity (CI). I certainly don't
    see CI as a thinking- or conversation-stopper, rather I see it as a useful
    new way of thinking. It takes some getting used to, and perhaps one never
    gets quite used to it, one of its advantages, as I see it (keeps one on
    one's toes). But I basically find it useful in talking about consciousness,
    value, mysticism, thinking, perception, and language, so much so that I find
    talking about these subjects without it to be of little value.

    Matt:
    If I understand the basics of the logic of contradictory identity, then I
    think I could agree with you on the distinction between LCI on the one hand
    and encountered contradictions on the other. I actually went across this
    area earlier in this thread, though I'm still not sure if I'm getting it
    right.

    Matt (from "Rhetoric," Aug. 25):
    If I understand correctly, the whole idea of the tetra...humanahumana-thingy
    (whatever it is), what Scott also calls the logic of contradictory identity,
    is that it isn't proper to say that ultimate reality does exist...or doesn't
    or...whatever the other two are (which I take to be Sam's point about
    telling his parishioners that he's an atheist). I take Rorty's point about
    ineffable things not existing to be that, once you eff it, you've made it
    exist in some sense where its no longer ineffable (which is why, I take it,
    in the mystical tradition, you have to keep repeating the tetra-mantra, to
    keep reminding yourself what you are and are not doing...along with the
    other two).

    Matt:
    If LCI is something analogous to a warning, then I'm still not sure why we
    have to live with the paradox of, what you sometimes refer to your project
    as, an "ironic metaphysics." Ironic in the Rortyan sense and metaphysical
    in the traditional sense, its basically a more generalized version of the
    common presupposition it has with the Metaphysics of Quality (defining the
    undefined). What I don't get is why we'd still style ourselves ironic
    metaphysicians if we recognize that we will never know if we've reached the
    true essences that are out there (until we've reached, asymptotically, the
    end of inquiry, which means when language stops changing because we all
    speak Peircish). Why not stop calling what we are doing "the search for
    essences"? Philosophy as an area of inquiry won't help if its subject
    matter, which it has been since it stopped spewing out other disciplines, is
    telling us when we've reached the essences. Even saying that we will
    someday speak Peircish doesn't help with any of the inquiries.

    _That_ inquiry, metaphysical inquiry after essences, hasn't been conclusive
    about anything, which is why irony has been increasingly conspicuous as
    people get bored. The irony isn't any more conclusive then the results of
    the search for essences because it isn't so much reached by a conclusive
    argument _for_ irony then it is reached by people being puzzled by the
    succession of conclusive arguments _against_ particular attempts to limn the
    true essence of reality, till those frustrated people finally go, "Well, why
    don't I do something else." You can spread the irony around to other
    disciplines' pretensions (like some scientists'), but otherwise you have to
    look for something new to do. I'm not sure what's left to inquire into when
    the ironic metaphysician has already condemned their own area of inquiry.
    There are surely other things that philosophy is in the business of, other
    things for philosophy to do. I'm just not sure why we have to keep on board
    a self-image that was forged for a different activity.

    Matt

    _________________________________________________________________
    On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
    get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

    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 : Wed Nov 16 2005 - 22:10:36 GMT