From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 22 2003 - 17:55:19 GMT
Matt
Fine and OK generally, sure sincerity and values
are what makes the difference, but also its metaphor
creation as you know, I think there is a lot to be
said for SQ/DQ and SQ levels as a less densely full
set of assumptions/language about how we can do knowledge than
one using essences, subject-objects, causality, laws, determinsism, etc.
It is also about allowing the human and social sciences to talk
in a more sensible language that is not so full of pseudo-objectivity
and detachment. We need to be able to look less narrowly at the
'spiritual' stuff that structures our existence like 'money', because
money is not a material thing for example, the power it possess
has a whole different level of complexity of being.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?
> David,
>
> David said:
> What status quo do you mean?
>
> Matt:
> The status quo I mean is the status quo of taking certain questions
seriously that we've always taken seriously. History is littered with
questions we no longer take seriously. Now, you are probably right, I need
to read more non-pragmatist philosophy. But the question is, why should I
take the things they talk about seriously as opposed to what the pragmatists
take seriously? Rorty responds to the question of how we are to decide
whose questions take priority by saying that everybody begs the question
over everybody else, there is no way to argumentatively decide. But, he
says, this doesn't mean we are being arbitrary by insisting that our
questions take priority, we are simply being sincere. We are making a value
judgment.
>
> David said:
> Pirsig's engagement with MOQ has guts and an impressive range of use in
various fields, pragmatists I feel are skeptical about the possibility of
attaining a more unified approach to knowledge in our current fragmented
times.
>
> Matt:
> Pragmatists think they have the pulse of the times by noticing that
"attaining a more unified approach" is what Plato was after. They are
skeptical about Plato. His unification project has been going on for quite
some time without much results. We think we should leave it be.
>
> Besides, I don't think Pirsig is really offering a unified approach to
knowledge. I think his main suggestion, that everything is based on value
choices, is the same as Rorty and pragmatism's and that both Pirsig and
Rorty would agree that what physics does, physics should do and that what
anthropology does, anthropology should do, that there shouldn't be some
unified method. As Pirsig says in Lila, "The language of physics is no good
for anthropology." (Thanks to Paul for that one.)
>
> 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 : Sat Nov 22 2003 - 17:59:47 GMT