[MD] Language Games (was Theatre and Definitions)

[Matt Kundert]

David,

Matt said:
I'm not convinced it does have value.  I still see it as an unneccessary 
reification of two standpoints, the Dynamic and the static.

David said:
My first thought here was: are you insane? If you do not gain anything from 
Pirsig by seeing SQ/DQ as a better distinction that subject/object than 
what's the point of the MOQ? I sure don't see any workable form of intellect 
that does not use distinctions as you in fact imply below with 'better'.

Matt:
Its only insane (and I think this is the reason many people find me so 
insane) if you refuse to disjoin the static/dynamic distinction from the 
other distinctions you might use to elaborate on it--such as the 
intuition/postulation distinction.  One can refuse and so see me as insane, 
just realize that my own sanity depends on seeing the two as distinct and 
thinking that one (intuition/postulation this time around, pure/impure 
sensation another recent time around) is superfluous and the other 
(static/dynamic) as constituted by other distinctions--thus allowing me to 
gain something from Pirsig.  In other words, I don't think we gain from 
Pirsig anything like an intuition/postulation distinction, at least as I've 
seen it bandied about.

What I don't like about the distinction is the idea of a "faculty of 
intuition".  That doesn't seem very useful to me.

And I have no idea where I implied a "workable form of intellect that does 
not use distinctions."  I love distinctions.

Matt said:
I can't see how a distinction between intuition and postulation plays any 
role in doing it.  I don't know what its for, and I bet anything we might 
want it for can be better played by other distinctions.

David said:
Such as?

Matt:
The last list of I came up with was this one:

"In the end, I would suggest three different senses of DQ. The first is 
DQ-as-non-intellectual-experience. This is the DQ of stubbing your toe, 
watching a sunset, and shrooming. In this sense, DQ causes you to shift your 
static patterns of belief in some way (though it doesn't offer you any 
reasons to do so). The second sense is DQ-as-pre-reflective. This is the DQ 
of offering off the cuff answers to questions like "Is that sunset 
beautiful?" or "Which student paper was better?" or "Does Lila have 
quality?" The third sense is DQ-as-innovation. This is the DQ of your static 
patterns being shifted to the point of breaking. This can happen when a 
non-intellectual experience shifts them or when you shift them yourself by 
reflection. All three of these senses can be seen to have links to the 
others, but I think all three need to be distinguished and that its when you 
conflate them that problems start to emerge. All three of these senses are 
commonsensical and there may be good, practical wisdom to be drawn from 
them, but I think problems will also emerge when you start to push them into 
philosophical service."

This was the set I suggested after discussing the use of "pre-intellectual 
experience" in elaborating on DQ several months ago.  The 
intuition/postulation clearly mirrors the pre/post distinction, which is why 
I find it a little surprising to be going through the dialogue again so 
soon.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/