[MD] Ironistic Metaphysics

[Steve Peterson]

> Hi Matt, John, DMB, all

you said:
> I would just add that Steve's puzzlement on why metaphysics
> is impossible to avoid relies on a subtle disparity between
> what Steve would like to call metaphysics (following more in
> line with Rorty's usage) and what John would like to call
> metaphysics (following more in line with Pirsig's usage).

Steve:
I think there is a difference in the way we are using to the term,  
and I could easily be wrong about how metaphysics has traditionally  
been thought of since I'm not expert on philosophy, but I tend to  
think that something different is going on with Pirsig other than  
metaphysics as usual. We have Pirsig actually saying that he has  
created a new metaphysics! Has anyone else ever made that claim?  
Pirsig has offered us polar coordinates (MOQ) with the suggestion  
that we may find it better than rectangular coordinates (SOM), while  
the idea of metaphysics had always, as far as I know, precluded the  
idea that there even can be more than one metaphysics. As far as I  
know, metaphysics is not taken to be the creation of ways of talking  
about reality/experience but the search for THE way of talking about  
it, i.e. trying to find the language in which the universe itself  
demands to be spoken about and to find the correct sentences that the  
universe demands be said about it.

Is not Pirsig then using the word "metaphysics" in an ironistic way  
in contrast with the search for such Truth? I'd like to read him as  
an ironist anyway.

Best,
Steve