From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 23:48:21 GMT
Hi Matt
By what certainty do you say our metaphors are made rather than
found? I agree with you due to my particular metaphysics. But what
are your post-metaphysical reasons for holding this view? And what
strange things these metaphors are. Can we find them in the sand.
Are you sure that we do not need some rather mysterious capacities
to produce them? That is to say that metaphysical category: DQ.
regards
David M
still banging the same drum.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Destination Quality" <planetquality@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: MD When is a society a good society?
> hi Matt how are you? Are you still working on that Lessing essay? To my
> sincere regret I have to say that this probably was a one time only
> appearance of me on the forum. I just do not have enough time and am
afraid
> that will seriously reduce the quality of my input - as can be seen
below -
> I can just shine a faint light on issues so big that I am in need of a sun
> to highlight them. I am not capable yet of producing such light. Hope you
> understand.
>
> Chris :
>
> pssst, i will let you in on a secret - there are no levels just as there
are
> no Kantian categories. Do you know why? Because they are static, do you
know
> what happens to static 'entities' in the struggle for life, or in the
> struggle for truth? They do not survive. Panta rei. What does survive?
That
> which is mobile, insecure, refutable, aposteriori, dynamic. How do we
judge
> apriori, we cannot. ho to discern degeneracy or DQ, I'm sorry my
philosophic
> friends, we can do nothing more but wait and see. A priori levels are
> platonic forms, Pirsig indeed is a platonist, a neoplatonist actually.
Does
> the name Plotinus ring a bell? So much in a few sentences and so much more
> to tell. Ok one secret for the Skutvikians among you: there is no
> subject-object thinking, how could there be such thinking when there is no
> subject?
>
> Matt:
>
> BUT, I think saying "there are no levels" and "there is no subject-object
> thinking" is slightly misleading. After we hand in our finding metaphors
for
> making metaphors, we can reconfigure some of the old distinctions, mainly
> because language wouldn't be a useful tool if it didn't make distinctions.
> What we would stop doing is reading these distinctions into the stars. We
> would stop suggesting that we found them in the heavens, and instead
follow
> Pirsig in suggesting that we are drawing them in the sand, here on Earth.
In
> particular, there is subject-object thinking as long as it remains useful
to
> differentiate yourself from others. When we knock SOM off its pedestal and
> it changes into SOT, its the same de-reification that post-Derrideans make
> of the fall of "logocentrism" into "the play of binary oppositions."
There's
> nothing dangerous about binary oppositions, as long as you've learned the
> lesson of not hypostatizing them.
>
> Chris:
> Nice subtle statement there, the difference between finding and
inventing(or
> finding and making as you express it) is of great importance in stripping
> metaphysics in general and the MOQ in particular. After not reading the
> distinctions in the stars however I want to take it a step further and say
> that we not only must bring them back to earth; we have to be even more
> attentive that we do not project these eternal ideas into our earth, into
> our language. What I mean to say is that we not only have to get rid of
> 'transcendental ontology' but even more we need to get rid of
'transcendent
> epistemology' (notice the dialectic: transcendental - transcendent - (you
> say utility) I will leave it to: ?????(gna)) as displayed in Kant's work
and
> where we see the sad remains from in contemporary philosophy. These sad
> remains nowadays is called logic; what else is a logical rule but a
> transcendent i_dont_know_what - form perhaps?
>
> I think that what i just said is actually the same as you are trying to
say
> with your example of the fall of "logocentrism" into "the play of binary
> oppositions" though I must admit I am not familiar at all with either
> Derrida or post-Derridians, please enlighten me on that matter. For now I
> assume this fall is something like the transition from the early to the
late
> Wittgenstein; though a 'fall' seems to me a highly inapropriate
expression;
> how about an ascent?
>
> I still have great problems with SOT though and I have very strong doubts
> that SOT is useful to differentiate yourself from others because language
> does not differentiate us from others; au contraire. There is a link here
to
> consciousness which seems to have has a quite similar structure and just
as
> there is no such thing as an individuated consciousness - it is a "net of
> communication" in Nietzsche's words - by the same token there is no
> individuated subject that by saying certain words differentiate him or
> herself from others. Language is not a tool that a subject uses freely to
> his or her benefit, we cannot step out of it. By your assumptions we have
to
> use a historical social
> construction to express our individuality; doesn't that sound terribly
> contradictive?
>
> As for the other part, the usefulness as you call it there also rises some
> problems because it is a hard to say what indeed is useful - maybe it is
> 'the most calamitious stupidity of which we shall perish some day' as the
> Plato of modern times said, who knows.
>
> Chris
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Spel spelletjes met je online vrienden via MSN Messenger
> http://messenger.msn.nl/
>
>
>
> 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 Mar 06 2004 - 23:52:07 GMT