[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[david buchanan]

dmb said to Steve:
Where you see a denial of relativism, I see a confession of relativism. And yes, the confession comes in the last sentence. "I'm just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi" is the groundless part and "I serve a better cause" is the social hope.

Steve replied:
Do you disagree with this passage or do you just think philosphers shouldn't admit such things? Are you asserting that there actually is a philosophical foundation that can be appealed to? Or are you saying that philosophers should still be in the business of trying to find such a foundation?

dmb says:
Yes, I disagree but not because for foundationalist reasons. I'm saying that we don't need a philosophical foundation to distinguish fascism from liberal democracy. Like I keep saying, relativism and foundationalism aren't the only two options and I'm opposed to them both.

Steve:

Are you different from a liberal ironist in this regard? (A liberal who knows there is no basis for his liberal beliefs except his own provincial context.) Since you also claim no ahistorical foundation I can't see how.

dmb says:

You don't see how I could differ without an ahistorical foundation? Well, that certainly explains why the all-or-nothing-ism been so hard at work here. But I don't need irony any more than I need a foundation to believe that liberal democracy is better. I don't even agree that they are the products of different provinces, let alone different contexts. I think most of us know what fascism sounds like in standard American english. And the fundamentalism he's happy to eradicate in his students is just as distinguishable from just about any principled position, let alone one based on rights, laws and the consent of the governed. In Pirsig analysis, context and history are key factors. There you see a way of asserting the difference in terms of evolved value systems so that the clash between them is painted as a conflict between social and intellectual values. This is a way to assert one over the other without any ahistorical foundations or unrealistic claims about eternal certainties. (And doesn't that seem kind of grandiose and quasi-theological anyway?) But we can find warrant in the past to make assertions about one being better than the other for the future. 

Steve:
Rorty is saying here that all perspectives are not equal, which is exactly what you said was lacking in Rorty's philosophy: "we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students."



dmb says:
Okay, but nobody said that Rorty can't distinguish between a professor and a bigot or claimed that he likes all perspectives equally. A bit like you, apparently, he just doesn't see how to assert such a thing without a foundation, he just doesn't see how to address even the simplest ethical issues, even if he personally thought cruelty is bad and kindness is good. Addressing that sort of thing is just not possible for philosophy. The poets are our best hope now, he thought. But I think he was just paralyzed by that all-or-nothingism. I guess he thought this sort of relativism was the only honest option. I just think "truth" needs to stay on the ground and then she'll be just fine, thanks very much.

  		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390708/direct/01/