[MD] Overcoming the System

[Ian Glendinning]

Absolutely not Matt, I'm afraid.

Obviously I appreciate you were talking bout systems metaphors, I was
just trying to get you to focus on something more specific.
I principle, yes, in practice ....

As I said your mentions of Bo here suggest it really is the "system"
vs the world problem you are talking about, but I already said that,
again, and again.

When I talk of the MoQ I talk of a "model" representing the world and
its workings, I can tell the model from the world OK.
I can also quite easily see the MoQ as an intellectual pattern, a
systematic model of the world, within the world.
I'm trying to get us beyond all this "obvious" stuff.

Living the word is what matters, the "model" - even a systematic model
- is just a means of explaining and justifying.

Washing dishes is covered perfectly by the MoQ - whenever one needs a
moral philosophical explanation of why they need doing - hopefully not
too often or the dishes would never get washed. Like, Doh! obviously.

I simply say, I still cannot see a single example in this round of
mails (or anywhere) not covered by this "model" - system if you
prefer.
Just list one - go one, restrain your writing hand.

Far from being any kind of obsession, it's a release - to get on with
living life.
Regards
Ian

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Matt
Kundert<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> 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/
>