[MD] Overcoming the System

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Matt, I guessed I was missing your point ... that's why I'm
pressing for more specifics.
I swim well enough not to be afraid of appearing a little nutty ;-)

I know, this is not what you meant, but .... when you say
"I doubt you, or anyone else, consults the MoQ before doing the dishes."
That's my point ... it's the MoQ, not the Quran. It's natural, not
some revealed word.
You would only need to consult it - it's framework and processes, not
"tablets of stone" - if washing the dishes turned up in some difficult
/ contentious moral dilemma. Let's not waste time inventing one. (I
was simply turning your example back on you to suit my point, not
yours.)

If you feel asking for an example is missing your point - I'm not
"daring" you to break the system, I'm trying to understand your
objection to accepting the MoQ - pragmatically. Anyway you say, stay
at the conceptual level ... OK. So answer me these instead ...

You say "I'm talking about the point in Wittgenstein saying that the
point of doing philosophy is knowing when to put it down." - I really
feel that's all I'm saying too. (There but for the grace ... etc ... I
get your Pirsig obsessional point, I really do.)

I'm also not saying philosophy is a system. Or rather I'd have to
stretch the "system" metaphor too far to be useful - its a whole
collection of different "systems" in my terms. But, ...

Why is "the metaphor of system is like tying weights to your ankles" -
even in general conceptual terms ?

What "two practices" are you really talking about here "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"
?

I don't see life and philosophy as "two practices" - not distinct
either / or practices anyway ... and which "interplay" am I missing in
saying this ? I rather seem to be focussing on the interplay.

Illustrate this point for me.
Ian