From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 19:14:43 BST
Scott
Don't understand why you think anti-essentialism=nominalism.
I am a realist as per essentialism but do not think we can reduce
reality down to any essential properties.
But not an anti-realist as per a nominalist. Nor giving priority
to concrete particulars, as these are indistinguishable without
language
I wish to avoid giving priority to either universals or particulars.
Reality=experience and this includes language as playing
a role in the emergence of reality/experience and is therefore
universals+particulars from the first word. This is also a sort
of curse because we can try and treat language as a synchronic
achievement and attempt to fix reality once and for all, however
language is always a living language and closure is never possible.
I am also happy to go a step further than pragmatism and say that
there is a equi-primordial Being (static quality) and Becoming(dynamic
quality)
character to reality that is a very convincing ontological basis for
understanding
experience/reality. Unlike the Platonic bias towards only Being that tries
to pin reality
down to an essential-static quality, although the dynamic has always been
trying
to force its way back into discussion, usually in the form of the subject.
Regards
David Morey
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 1
DM and Matt,
My point of view is that to be either an essentialist or an
anti-essentialist is a mistake. Universals and particulars are mutually
constituting and mutually contradictory. That is, universals make no sense
without particulars, and particulars make no sense without universals. The
relation between universals and particulars requires the logic of
contradictory identity. The error of the nominalist (anti-essentialist) is
that of continuing to make a language/reality distinction, just as the
representationalist does.
If there were no universals there would be no particulars, and vice versa. I
don't just mean we couldn't say "that is a (particular) flower". I mean
there wouldn't be a flower. The flower can only exist as a flower because it
participates in its species' "language", but on the other hand the species
does not exist except through its expression in particular flowers.
Pragmatic materialists would likely reply by saying they just want to get
rid of the universal/particular distinction. But they can only do so by
privileging reality over language, since language is the embodiment of the
universal/particular distinction. With just particulars, one can think that
one can say "There's a tiger". But one needs universals to say "Relax, there
are no tigers around." To put it another way, you can't get to words about
things if "originally" there are only things.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 1
> Hey Matt
>
> I suggest, we grab what we want, a non-essentialist Pirsig, and insist
> that's what he really is, so that we can gather as many people on the
> anti-essentialist side as we can. We are few enough. I never get this
> emphasising someone's errors thing. Are there any essentialists out there
> who fancy a discussion with the anti-essentialist faction? Pirsig
certainly
> says a lot that is anti-essentialist I believe.
>
> Regards
> DM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 9:44 PM
> Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 1
>
>
> Paul,
>
> Paul said:
> I make no apologies for using Pirsig quotes from any of his publications.
Bo
> ’s assertion presupposes that there is a “pre-MOQ” and “post-MOQ” Pirsig
to
> mix. I don’t think there is such a thing. I’m still waiting for a good
> reason not to think this.
>
> Matt:
> I love how there is so much disagreement about interpreting the MoQ.
>
> For instance, (if I remember correctly) I disagree with Bo about a handful
> of interpretational issues (some of them major) and (if I remember
> correctly) I agree with Paul about a handful of interpretational issues
> (some of them major). But, I agree with Bo that the Pirsig of ZMM is
enough
> different from the Pirsig of Lila to warrant a distinction between the
two.
> However, I also mix quotes from all of his publications depending on
> circumstance because I think the dividing line is one of emphasis. I
think
> the early Pirsig emphasizes a pragmatist/post-modern reading of philosophy
> and the late emphasizes a essentialist/modern reading. But there are
> elements of both in both.
>
> 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
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 Sep 10 2003 - 19:19:16 BST