From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 17 2004 - 12:31:22 GMT
Matt:
I suggest the rejection of ontology is a metaphysical position
despite the pragmatist disclaimers. It puts us in a cetain sort of place,
where you tell us certain things make sense and others do not.
I think it is better to examine your metaphysics and work out what
your ontology is. But I think that ontology is big stuff, it underlies
long periods of history and civilisations. Now, I agree, Pirsig goes
too far when he says 'always and everywhere', but it is hard to get
a new ontology going without making these claims, and once ontology changes
it seems to stick around for a long time, certainly if we are shifting away
from
a substance ontology this would be a huge change. I think Rorty, etc, get
confused by seeing this change as so big it is giving up metaphysics because
everything they have read has been so dominated by it. But I suggest it is
only a new ontology we look at not the end of any metaphysics.
I do accept, being very pure, that Pirsig's ontology could easily be changed
in the future, but if it was adopted we would have hundreds of years worth
of implications to get through first. Also, the best thing for an ontology
is
simplicity, least full of assumptions (the kind you can't get rid of unless
you want to think
nothing) i.e. DQ/SQ keeps it much more simple than SO distinction. I like
it, I want
to see where SQ/DQ can get us. Bravo for the new ontology. "always and
forever",
who cares, let's just let time tell us. But I certainly cannot imagine a
simpler and less
presumptious approach to ontology, i.e. doing less violence to the wholeness
of
experience, ditto Heidegger.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: MD: MOQ Where's the matter gone?
> Bo,
>
> Bo said:
> "What is true everywhere and always" is what Pirsig means by a metaphysics
in the opening chapters of LILA:. I know that you hold that everything is
man-made and "perishable", but - illusory or not - we can't avoid it and if
the MOQ makes it in the world, it will have wrestled the TRUTH (relay pin)
from the SOM. Isn't this good pragmatism?
>
> Matt:
> I know what Pirsig says, its why I criticism him for being a
Platonic/Kantian metaphysician. My point is that being a metaphysician and
a pragmatist are incompatible. Good pragmatism is holding back from the
overly Whiggish claim that what you now believe has been the Truth
everywhere and always. It is instead following James in saying that it is
what is good to now believe.
>
> 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 Jan 17 2004 - 12:40:45 GMT