[MD] Overcoming the System

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Ian,

Yeah, I'm beginning to think you don't see it.  I thought at 
first it was just one of those, Oh, yeah, I see Matt, I 
already agree Matt, things you do, but

When you take my _specific_ example of washing the dishes

and say the MoQ perfectly covers that, giving us a moral 
explanation (like we needed one)

then you are missing my boat.  Because that's not why I 
started talking about dishes.

Which is fine, like I keep saying, I doubt you, or anyone else, 
consults the MoQ before doing the dishes.  But the concern 
I was addressing is the relationship between the _practice_ 
of philosophy (guided in this case by the system metaphor) 
and the _practice_ of anything else.  You say, "in principle" 
vs. "in practice," but I'm trying to remind you of the 
_pragmatist position_ that _everything is a practice_.  I'm 
talking about two practices running up against each other, 
and you wave your hand dismissively with a "well, in principle 
they could..." and then you run over to the one practice, 
philosophy, and say, "Well, how are you going to break this 
system?"  I don't care about breaking your system, I care 
about the real life experience of balancing two practices.  
Right now I care about the interplay, the thin moments we 
have _between_ two practices, not the specifics of the 
moments _within_ either practice (philosophy or dishes).

You're trying to move me beyond the obvious stuff--I'm 
trying to point out the things you're missing when you 
perform the "obvious stuff."

It's not about--it was _never_ about--an "example" not 
being covered by the MoQ.  Of course there's going to be 
all kinds of here-to-fore unthought-up shit that are going to 
bunch up the MoQ's gears--isn't that the point in 
acknowledging the MoQ's historicity, that it might someday 
be transcended?  So why are you begging for it?  That's not 
the point in acknowleding it, is it? 

I'm not talking about _actually_ breaking it, I'm talking 
about the _possibility_ of it breaking, such that _why are 
we even using a metaphor where your explanation and 
justification for the world could come crashing down if it 
"breaks"?_  It's as if you were daring me to break the system, 
"C'mon, do it, try to break it, I dare you, just try" and then 
when I fail (which is based a lot on the other person's 
ingenuity, not mine), the person with the system gets to feel 
smug--but see the attitude?  The critic didn't break the 
_system_ so you feel even more at home _in the system_.  
I'm talking about real, psychic consequences of hubris--why 
even taunt an inevitability?

I'm talking about the acknowledged _inevitable moment_ 
when the system breaks.  I'm talking about _specific 
moments_ when it has--you want a specific moment of 
what I'm talking about, I've pointed in each of the last two 
e-mails to the example of one Robert M. Pirsig, before he 
becomes incarcerated in the psych ward and has his brain 
fried after his stint at the University of Chicago, where he 
succumbs to the endless dialectical chain of arguments.

I keep saying I'm talking about the _general_ metaphor of 
system, and you repeatedly insist I offer an example for 
the thresher of the _specific_ system of the MoQ.  _That's_ 
why I say you're still talking about something different, but 
giving me more and more wheat for _my_ thresher.  It's like 
you'll almost talk about the metaphor, like when you talk like, 
"Yes, yes, obviously I hope not to ponder about the MoQ 
too often so I can get to the dishes," but then you pop right 
back down to _your own system_ and obsessively ask for an 
example to break it.  You won't stay a moment at the general 
level.  You say all the obvious stuff _I'm not doubting you 
can do_, like tell the difference between the MoQ and the 
world, but then you immediately trot over to your system and 
say, "See, the whole world fits inside of it."  I'm talking about 
the absurdity of locutions like that, I'm talking about the 
effects on a person that can have if you _accidentally_ start 
taking them too seriously.  Hey, I'm reading Don Quixote right 
now, and it's not as if he had a choice in going mad--it just 
happened one day.  I'm saying, stop treating philosophy like 
a system, just as it may have helped Don Quixote if someone 
had told him to stop treating books of chivalry like histories.
I'm talking about the point in Wittgenstein saying that the 
point of doing philosophy is knowing when to put it down.

I'm hyperbolizing your replies, clearly, but I'm not sure what 
the trouble is.  I've tried to make this very concrete.  I 
tried to give you a specific, fairly realistic example of what 
might happen when you try telling your partner about the 
MoQ, and all they want you to do is the dishes.  You keep 
telling me--just as I keep saying to you--that you swim the 
waters just fine (_no one is calling that into question for 
the sake of this discussion_), but my _suggestion_ is that 
the metaphor of system is like tying weights to your 
ankles--you might not sink, but it's still probably not a 
good idea to do it, or at least know how to undo them 
quick (which is what I thought Steve's wise circumlocution 
showed us how to do).

Now, I don't think this will help, nor do I think you really 
need the "help," you're a fine swimmer, but please don't ask 
again for an example that breaks the MoQ--you sound little 
nutty.

Matt


> 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

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. 
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009