[MD] Language Games (was Theatre and Definitions)

[David M]

Ian

I strongly agree with this, its all shades of grey for me -looking
for agreement, not black and white and pistols at dawn.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Language Games (was Theatre and Definitions)


Well DMB and Matt,

I'm obviously crazy too, in that I find a whole lot to like in
Pirsig's MoQ and still see pragmatic limitations to metaphysics.

Rather than replaying the cracked record about ultimate holes in any
metaphysics, perhaps I could point at DMB's summary being part of what
I refer to as unnecessary polarisations - an all or nothing approach,
looking for a binary argument, a conflict, a disagreement. Normally
something I find myself accusing rationally objective scientific
SoMists of.

If someone doesn't wholly agree they become tarred with totally
disagreeing, quite unnecessarily IMHO.

Ian

On 4/4/06, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
> DMB,
>
> DMB said:
> Correct me if I'm off the mark here, but isn't it true that this
> philosophical method is part of a larger anti-metaphysical project? Isn't 
> it
> true that one of the not-so-hidden assumptions is that we are necessarily
> limited to small truths about small things? There is no way to properly
> unify or rank these various vocabularies, no way good to assert plumber 
> talk
> over physics talk or anything else? We just say its different and 
> menaingful
> in its own terms. Isn't that about right, even if its not very generous?
> Well, that how it seems to me; rigged to fail from the start. The game is
> fixed to preclude metaphysics or anything beyond practical purposes, to 
> rule
> it out, am I right? Well, if that's the case, then I think its only 
> natural
> that this would frustrate a metaphysical conversation rather than clear up
> anything.
>
> Matt:
> This is where you continually go off the mark with summing up what I'm
> saying.  Pragmatism is only anti-metaphysical if by metaphysics we mean
> "find out what reality really is behind the appearances" (what Plato was
> doing), but it is not anti-metaphysical if by metaphysics we mean "setting
> up a general vision or paradigm for thinking about stuff" (what Pirsig is
> doing).  Nobody is antimetaphysical in the second sense.  Pragmatism just
> means that _everything_ is practical, including what we do we when we 
> create
> big, large general visions of things.  There is no distinction between
> "metaphysics" and "practical purposes" as you were using it.
>
> I've been making a distinction between the two uses of metaphysics for a
> long, long time.  I told you in December that I wasn't going to talk to 
> you
> until you acknowledged that distinction.  The way you keep saying things
> like this is why your type of dialogue looks more like slander.  "Look,
> look, he's anti-metaphysical!  Pirsig does metaphysics, so he must be 
> crazy
> to like Pirsig!"  The trouble is that it is just plain _wrong_ to say that
> I'm antimetaphysical because by _your_ lights, by _your_ definition of
> "metaphysics," I'm as metaphysical as you.
>
> Matt
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/