[MD] Overcoming the System

[Matt Kundert]

Hey Ian,

Ian said:
Obviously I can accept that "in principle" getting too attached 
to - taking too seriously - any one system view of the world, 
could lead to being un-necessarily boxed in, even if just 
through complacent "haughty" pride. But I'm being quite 
pragmatic here ...

Matt:
The phrase "any one system" isn't quite what I mean--I'm 
talking about _system_, the metaphor.

Let me try and explain the pragmatics as I see them: you ask, 
"In practice what is there (anything specific you can identify) 
that is beyond the MoQ ?" My natural, pragmatic inclination is 
to answer, "Well, just about everything else...."  In literal 
fact--everything _else_.  I'm talking about the relationship 
between philosophy--as a practice--and life--the most 
general term for everything.  Philosophy, and therefore any 
philosophical system, is just one part of life.

I know you, and pretty much everyone else, understands 
that, and hell, so has every philosopher pragmatically 
understood that. What I'm suggesting is that the _metaphor 
of system_ gives rise to what in other circumstances 
(outside of doing philosophy) is just an absurd Skutvikism: 
there's nothing beyond the Metaphysics.  Say that to a 
regular person who doesn't do philosophy and they might say, 

"Well, how about those dishes that need washing?"  

"Oh, no, see those are in the MoQ.  See, all we need to do 
is extrapolate the static patterns principle to get four 
different kinds, which encapsulate the inorganic patterns of 
the porcelain and its spatialtemporal position, the biological 
residue of the food we ate, and the social patterns of the 
practice of cleaning, and even the prior using, of plates."

"Oh, no, honey--I'm talking about you washing the fucking 
dishes, which aren't in your MoQ, but _over there_, where I 
put them after I had to clear the table, after I cooked dinner, 
because you've been too busy at the computer talking about 
'MoQ, MoQ, MoQ.'  I'm talking about, _go wash the goddamn 
dishes_."

Do you see the "actual restraints of the system view" I'm 
attempting to point at?  When you're doing philosophy, you're 
not doing a whole bunch of other stuff.  It's nothing particular 
about the MoQ--it's the fundamental fact of any social 
practice.

The metaphor of system is a metaphor that can give rise to 
an obsession over a single thing (the practice of philosophy, 
whether through writing or just sitting and thinking) over and 
above all other things--again, think of Pirsig and how he broke 
because of his obsession in ZMM.

You say, "I mean, I'm not suggesting MoQ full stop, that's it, 
job, done - philosophers can all shuffle off and retire. There 
are plenty of problems to solve, questions to answer. Plenty 
of bio-socio-intellectual patterns to work and re-work for the 
good of humanity - that's what the MoQ is about. But this all 
seems to be "within" the bounds of the MoQ - the MoQ 
description of the world - to me ?"

Sure, sure--of course there are tons of problems the MoQ 
can try and fix.  But in the course of flexing the system to 
fix problems, are you fixing the problems or fixing the 
problems of the MoQ?  A good system-answer would be 
they're one and the same, though the dishes might object.  
You say you aren't suggesting that philosophers can all 
"shuffle off and retire."  But look at your next sentence: 
"There are plenty of problems to solve, questions to answer."  
_Look at how ambiguous this statement is just following the 
previous one_.  Are you talking about philosophical problems, 
or the problems of humanity?  A philosopher might think 
they're one and the same, but his (because it is still a 
male-dominated profession, even amateurly) wife (because 
it is still dominated by straight dudes) might object in the 
name of holy hell because those goddamn dishes still won't 
clean themselves.

The MoQ just describes the world--sure, we all (most of us) 
understand that.  It's a tool we use to understand certain 
problems in their most general terms.  Sure, sure.  Nobody 
uses the MoQ to wash the dishes.  But--have you ever 
gotten in trouble for spending too much time writing posts to 
the MD?  If you've ever been told by a loved one, "Hey, spend 
some time with me, rather than whatever the hell you've been 
doing for the last couple hours," then I think you'll understand 
what I mean when I say, the practice of philosophy is one 
separable part of life.

Pirsig understood this keenly because _he_ took philosophy 
too seriously--ZMM was built around that theme.  Rorty 
understood this keenly because _he_ took philosophy too 
seriously--his playful rhetoric was an avoidance scheme.  I 
understand this keenly because _I_ take philosophy too 
seriously--look at how much time I spend here, look at how 
much time I put into crafting these posts, how much time I 
put into writing and reading.

One of the main things Pirsig and Rorty were doing _for 
philosophers_ was trying to make them more self-conscious 
about what philosophy can and can't do for you.  Pirsig's 
attack on the obsession about Truth over Good was of this 
ilk--there are an infinite number of truths, sentences that 
are true, but if we spend _all_ of our time hunting them down, 
we'll neglect the Good, like spending time with our families.  
Rorty's public/private distinction was built around this 
wisdom, too.

It is quite likely that most everyone here performs the 
balancing act of life much better and more easily than I 
do--but those who don't and are conscious of it try to ferret 
out bits of wisdom about what it is _in philosophy_ that might 
be causing these obsessions, like Freud hunting through the 
unconscious.  I'm simply suggesting that System-Rhetoric, 
the metaphor of system for describing our philosophical 
endeavors, might be one more of those sneaky little bastards, 
like putting Truth over the Good, that'll get you, even though 
I doubt anyone here needs that advice, since everyone's 
already well-adjusted.

With all that, let me repeat my favorite two paragraphs 
from the last post (and notice my emphasis, not on "a," as 
in single, but "philosophy"):

The deal is, if you're focused on the system (a _philosophy_), 
then you're ability to repair _the system_ becomes your ability 
to not fall into disarray in the world.  If you come across a 
problem that you can't for the life of you figure out how to fix 
(we can't be ingenious all the time)--isn't that _exactly_ what 
happened to Pirsig in ZMM...? 

But, if instead you are focused on life, then you're already 
well aware that there are tons of problems that you face, not 
all of them at once, some you defer, like that problem with 
your philosophy you just...can't...work...out--ah, screw it, I 
need to do the dishes right now, or feed myself, or put that 
cigarette out so it doesn't burn into my fingers.

I'm I making more sense yet?

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