[MD] Overcoming the System

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Matt,

Aside - I took your "[Pirsig's MoQ] was created by a person responding
to his own personal, unique problems"
As the implied statement "... and therefore not necessarily /
generally relevant to others ..."
(I don't think the problems he was addressing were unique - I happen
to identify very strongly with them - "there but for the grace ..." I
have said many times.)

And I make no claims of philosophical originality by Pirsig - except
in his rhetorical writing - that is perfectly clear in many places.
My interest here is the practical value of the MoQ, not in Pirsig,
except as a fellow human.

But no matter ... on to the substance of your contention.

You said
 "If you get hung up on system, you'll begin to think you live
_inside_ the system, like a box ... I'm not in a box"

Me neither - Let me say again. The "universal framework" is no box.
It is certainly an evolved collection of tools - physical, biological,
social and intellectual patterns.
But it is an evolving collection of inteconnected patterns too - it
can go anywhere - including the social / cultural / intellectual
patterns, that might box us in if we simply accepted they were static.

But they don't "go anywhere" .. in an anything goes sense ... the
dependencies and inter-relationships between the patterns arising
(evolving) - the tools & processes - are part of the framework. I see
no boundaries to this "box". A "system" that quite explicitly has
expanding boundaries. Why "overcome" the system, if it works fine, and
encourages us to take it where it needs to go - what can there
possibly be "outside" this system whose basis is .... possibility ?

I think the crux is your emphasis on the word *inside*.
It's the old finger & moon, model & world, metaphysics & reality issue
- I hesitate to say confusion - surely ?

Regards,
Ian

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Matt
Kundert<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Ian,
>
> Ian said:
> Matt where you say "Pirsig wanted to say ..."
> "Every person needs their own philosophy, because the arc
> of America is our individuality."
> Where do you get that from ?
>
> Matt:
> It's a melting of things he said: things like the philosophology
> section (where he states the only way to read philosophy is
> to first figure out what you believe) and at the beginning of
> Lila where he says the Metaphysics of Quality already exists.
> And the latter half of the comment is the Emersonian
> connection, which Pirsig, as one example, incarnates in his
> cooptation of Native American culture.
>
> In this particular melting, Pirsig both thinks that philosophy
> is wide and idiosyncratic but also a bit necessary, for it is
> the wisdom we bring to every unique situation we confront
> as individuals--so we _need_ to become more explicit and
> self-comprehending about it.  And in that sense, I don't
> exactly disagree.
>
> Ian said:
> The thing you call the weird monster "MoQ created to be
> transcended" Is the thing that make it so attractive - as a
> "universal" framework of evolutionary layers of patterns, (as
> I've said before), it contains the means of its own evolution.
> All its own history as well as its future. Steve clearly sees
> that too - "never ... the final word on reality".
>
> Matt:
> Yeah, but it is exactly my contention that we are decieving
> ourselves if we think that _this_, its self-transcending quality,
> is what makes this "system" so attractive--for _what_
> evolves?  _US!_  _We_ are the ones who evolve, we are
> ideas, but we are ideas in motion, we use them.
> Self-transcendence isn't even new with Pirsig (Hegel?), so
> it makes even less sense to lay our weight on this aspect.
>
> I think it is a "bad faith" aspect--"the Metaphysics of Quality"
> is as much a rhetorical figure as Richard Rorty's infamous
> "we's".  Who are these we's? people ask.  What is this
> Metaphysics of Quality that stands apart from Pirsig?  Both
> of them are rhetorical strategies of invitation to the outside,
> making your thoughts useful to others.  I have no problem
> with that, but to say that the MoQ "contains the means of
> its own evolution" is about as helpful and obvious as saying
> that each person contains the means of their own
> evolution--of course we do, who else would?  Perhaps
> people needed that to be made explicit in "their system," but
> by making a "system" state it explicitly still obfuscates (by
> virtue of the system being the focus of attention) the fact
> of individuals facing life--because every individual facing life
> as an individual facing life _knows_ that they are in constant
> flux and evolvement of the tools of engagement, of their
> ideas, their wisdom.
>
> Philosophical _systems_ have blotted out life from
> Philosophy's Sight, which is what Pirsig wanted to correct,
> he wanted to bring life back to philosophy, as much as
> philosophy back to life.  It is Steve's circumlocution--that
> saying the MoQ is historical is just to say that Pirsig is a
> finite, historically situated being--that frees us from the
> temptation towards bad faith, by taking the "system" too
> seriously, which is not what Pirsig wanted.  His rhetorical
> structure--his mode of externalizing his ideas for public
> scrutiny and acceptance--forced him into this position, but
> if we read carefully, as I think Steve has, we can avoid
> what just looks like a pratfall.  Like when Kierkegaard said
> of Hegel that if he'd just prefaced his Science of Logic with,
> "This is all just a thought-experiment," he would've been the
> greatest philosopher who ever lived; but as it is, he's just a
> fool.
>
> If you get hung up on system, you'll begin to think you live
> _inside_ the system, like a box, rather that it just being a
> collection of tools, like the many, many others you use in life
> (though none of them are "systems").  You get inside the box,
> and then wonder how it goes anywhere--well, you're the one
> who got inside the box.  I go wherever I want just
> fine--of course, I'm not in a box.
>
> I don't think Steve sees clearly what you think he does,
> because I think Steve has moved beyond system.  Following
> Steve's circumlocution, when one says, "Pirsig never said the
> MoQ has the final word on reality," we can understand it is the
> truest, obvious wisdom of life, and yet one philosophy needs most:
> no person ever has the final word on reality.
>
> And I never said that the Metaphysics of Quality is "unique and
> personal to Pirsig in its value."  You misunderstood what I was
> saying.
>
> Matt
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
> http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online: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/
>