[MD] Ironistic Metaphysics

[John Carl]

 Steve,


What we would need to adopt any of these systems and what no one has ever
> invented is a method that stands outside of metaphysics that tells us how to
> choose between such systems.



Well I always assumed that at its heart, that was what the MoQ was - the
assertion that Quality is the metaphysical foundation of reality takes us on
the meta-journey beyond our belief so we can always ask, "Is this any good?"
in the firm confidence that "good" has meaning and this meaning is
apprehensible and attainable.   And we can turn the Quality question upon
the Moq as it is statically formulated and constantly modify, hone and
perfect that which is already good, in the hopes that it will evolve into
better.  Thus keeping our metaphysical systems perfect AND dynamic.

Such is my belief, anyway.

Sincerely and not at all ironically,

John







I think the recognition of the shortcomings of the project of creating a
> metaphysical system is what Rorty means by ironism. To be ironist about a
> metaphysical system is to use it for whatever purposes it is useful for
> without thinking of it as closer to the one true account of the way things
> really are than any other since the ironist when it comes to metaphysics
> doesn't think of metaphysics as the project of getting past some Kantian
> barrier between language and reality as it really is--that we can get more
> or less in touch with reality by coming up with the right sentences to
> describe reality and holding them to be true.
>
> So my question about whether Pirsig is an ironist is concerned with whether
> Pirsig sees the MOQ getting us in touch with reality as it really is...Or
> something like that. I'm still hoping that Matt or someone will jump in and
> tell me what it is I want to ask.
>
> Best,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 11:09 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>
>
>> Hey Steve and y'all:
>> I remember being perplexed by this sort of talk when Matt used to talk
>> like that. What I still don't quite understand is what Rorty means by "final
>> vocabulary" or "choice between vocabularies". What is a metavocabulary and
>> how can one be neutral or universal? I mean, this definition of an "ironist"
>> depends entirely on the meaning of such terms but no explanations or
>> definitions of them are supplied.
>>
>> Matt? Steve? Can you tell me what this talk about "vocabulary" means?
>>
>> Without that, he just seems to be saying that an "ironist" is a person who
>> is uncertain of her own beliefs and that this uncertainty is a very
>> sophisticated sort of doubt. It's like he's trying to make it sound cool.
>> When such irony is compared to the certainty of fanatics and ideologues, I
>> suppose it is pretty cool. Is he just saying that an ironist is like
>> Socrates; she's the wisest of them all because she knows that she doesn't
>> know anything?
>>
>>
>> But I also suppose (and hope) Rorty is saying something more interesting
>> than that. Otherwise, why use the fancy jargon? Otherwise, why provide a
>> definition that needs a whole series of other definitions? I would hope his
>> point his worth the work it takes to get that point. I hope he's not just
>> repeated that Socratic idea of wisdom, cause there sure are easier and more
>> elegant ways to say that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  From: peterson.steve at gmail.com
>>> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:11:58 -0400
>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>> Subject: [MD]  Ironistic Metaphysics
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> What is metaphysics? Does everyone have a metaphysics? Or can people
>>> get by without being metaphysicians?
>>>
>>> Rorty:
>>> "I shall define an "ironist" as someone who fulfills three
>>> conditions: (1) She has radical and continuing doubts about the final
>>> vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by
>>> other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books
>>> she has encountered; (2) she realizes that argument phrased in her
>>> present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
>>> (3) insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not
>>> think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it
>>> is in touch with a power not herself. Ironists who are inclined to
>>> philosophize see the choice between vocabularies as made neither
>>> within a neutral and universal metavocabulary nor by an attempt to
>>> fight one's way past appearances to the real, but simply by playing
>>> the new off against the old."
>>>
>>> Is Pirsig an ironist?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Steve
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get free photo software from Windows Live
>> http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON
>> :WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
>> 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/
>