Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?

From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 00:52:17 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD matt said scott said"

    Wim,

    Wim said:
    In my view "metaphysics" therefore cannot be substituted by "vocabulary" and "MoQ" is a very specific way of organizing beliefs, by answering these "metaphysical" questions in a way which gives "experience" a central role. Are you sure that this couldn't be a useful redefinition of metaphysics (and one that is quite close to Pirsig's way of using the word, even though that is less relevant to me)?

    Matt:
    Or rather, "metaphysics" is a specific kind of vocabulary, or that "metaphysicians" is a particular orientation to our vocabularies. Either way, those redefinitions aren't really redefinitions at all: they are the traditional view of metaphysics because they answer the standard "metaphysical questions" about reality, which pragmatists think we should just ignore. In this case, I'm positive it isn't useful: its Platonic. And if it is close to the way Pirsig uses it, then so much the worse for the pragmatist Pirsig.

    Wim said:
    Where did you find Pirsig's assertion that a MoQ is a contradiction in terms?

    Matt:
    Its in the beginning somewhere, I think right after he talks about anthropology and the kind of book he wants to write and right before he talks about the positivist reaction and the mystic reaction.

    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 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 00:53:00 GMT