[MD] Overcoming the System

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Mr. 2,

Let me first say that I'm not exactly talking about a 
"systems approach" to understanding, at least not as the 
jargon is used--as I understand it--in many of the social 
sciences, and likely gleaned from watching the natural 
sciences.  I'm talking about the metaphor of system in 
philosophy.

Though, granting that, what you say isn't too far off from 
my topic: you ask if we _can_ create a super system that 
will leave us philosophically satisfied.  Sure, it's not that hard, 
though just as long as you are easily satisfied.  Which is the 
rub--if you listen to critics (with their own minds and ideas 
about it) or have a high internal sense of dissatisfaction 
(which is like being your own critic), then you'll never be 
satisfied, and you'll never get around to doing the dishes 
(and no, I won't do yours, I have a pile of my own).

You also ask if this system might help you do the dishes, 
and I have two answers--yes and no.

It's difficult to imagine how doing philosophy qua philosophy 
will help you do the dishes qua dishes.  Though, on the other 
hand, stranger things have happened--maybe it could, 
people find the strangest wisdom from the strangest places.  
And, indeed, nothing says that an _act_ of doing the dishes 
can't also, concurrently, be an _act_ of philosophy--I'm not 
going to say it ain't.  

_But_, and here's my concern, the way philosophy is 
traditionally done is through writing, usually precipitated by 
pondering.  One might reasonably ponder while doing the 
dishes, but it's hard to imagine writing while doing the 
dishes--it just seems physically impossible.  And here's the 
even bigger crux--one might, especially here at the MD, 
object to this traditional image of how philosophy is done.  
Screw writing, you say, my life is a philosophy.  Okay, that's 
fine--but it is difficult to imagine what that means if you see 
philosophy through the metaphor of _system_, as Pirsig does 
occasionally.  What does having a philosophical system mean 
if not something that is worked out somewhere on paper?  
One can recur to their amazing memory all they want, for 
most us, if anything systematic is getting done, it'll be in 
front of paper.

Now, one _can_ call the human organism a "system."  Yeah, 
sure, easy as pie now to answer the question, "can you 
create a system which includes the two?"--nature already 
did.  That's my favorite part about Douglas Adams' story--the 
computer system that was going to tell us the Question to 
Life, the Universe, and Everything was, the Earth.  But calling 
a human a "system," and building from there, doesn't seem to 
get to the nub of my concern.

"So, is an all revealing system of systems possible?"

Sure, call it "life," and you can rest easy and go do the dishes.

"Many of those in deep mystical or religious or philosophic 
thought believe so, and have found it."

Yeah, but why should we take their word for it?

Are you going to take mine?

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook.
http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_facebook:082009