[MD] Overcoming the System

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Ian, I'm going out of my gourd.  I can't believe this is 
so difficult, and since my suspicion is that, if you did 
suddenly understand the words spilling from my hands, 
you'd go, "Oh, yeah Matt. I already think and know that," 
and since you were the one that took up the conversation 
in a kind of oppositional manner, I suspect that I need to 
just let it lie--because it is like you're moving in slow 
motion to my more and more similar repetitions of the 
same point. 

I'll try lamely once more-- 

Ian said:
(When you say system thinking in philosphy - I suspect 
you really mean thinking of "philosophy as a system" ? 
See later.)

Matt:
Oh my _fucking_ god, are you serious?!?

YES!  The metaphor of system, the metaphor of system, 
the metaphor of system. System metaphor, system 
metaphor, system metaphor.

I dare say, you won't find once versions of the phrase 
"system thinking" in my posts (except once when I was 
telling someone what I wasn't talking about) which you 
attribute to me.  Perhaps you aren't reading me as 
carefully as I read other people, particularly with the 
displays of close reading I've committed the time to 
producing for your posts, where I've been teasing out 
the rhetorical situations and connotations of what you 
write....?  Perhaps?

Ian said:
No, no, no. I'm not "conflating" anything - the very 
opposite.

Matt:
Yes, yes, yes--I'm talking (see above) about the 
metaphor of system, and you kept asking me for a 
specific example that confutes the Metaphysics of Quality, 
which is itself but a single instance of the metaphor of 
system.  So how _else_ was I supposed to understand 
what you were saying while at the same time _assuming_ 
(perhaps quite wrongly now) that you were saying 
_anything_ that was relevant to what I was talking about?

If I didn't make that assumption of relevance, there would 
be no conversation.

Do you see yet?  I will grant to till the cows come home, 
as we like to say in the Midwest, that this "conflation" I'm 
pointing out is almost certainly predicated on the seeming 
confusion drawn around my talking about "the metaphor 
of system" rather than "any particular system," but I was 
trying to help you see the distinction by pointing at the 
weird way you were conducting yourself in the
 conversation.

And by the way, you're "let's try this explanation" choice 
was _horrible_: that wasn't a clear statement of my view 
at all, it was one of those places I was trying to punch up 
how absurd your assertional reactions are to me.

Not at all a good place to pick out--in fact, only convenient 
for someone picking something out that then they can 
react to out of context.  You might say "not out of 
context," but I was _explicitly_ man-handling _your_ text 
to help a revelation, not "offering an explanation."  Why 
not try the piece of text I've repeated three times (now a 
quasi-fourth):

-----
You keep asking for one illustration of the interplay, how 
system is like weights, and all the rest of phrases I keep 
using to try and articulate my point.  So, I'll give it again:

"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."

Notice: life is the whole, and philosophy and dishes are 
two particulars within the whole.  What I'm asking is that 
we _not lose sight of the whole_.  This is illustrated in the 
second part where, while focused on the whole, we treat 
both philosophy as a particular bit we can pick up and put 
down because we need to do a different particular bit of life 
(the dishes).

System, on other other hand, lends itself to obsession 
(and becomes a weight) because of the example of 
Pirsig--because Phaedrus conceives of the world, not just 
as a mythos, but as a _systematic mythos_ and his ability to 
fix the world, and his life, becomes his ability to fix 
conceptually the mythos.  Which is why he goes off the deep 
end (narratively speaking).
-----

Try reacting to that.  Pick apart what you think I'm trying 
to say there.  That might help this conversation immensely.

Ian said:
I admit to "systems thinking" and would defend that (as 
I did to Dave) if I saw any actual objection to it.

Matt:
I have _no_ idea what you mean by "systems thinking."  
This is a sudden importation, since you claim that it is 
different than talking about the "metaphor of system," 
which is the _only_ thing I've been talking about.

But, the simple example-qua-objection to the _metaphor 
of system_ that I've kept using is the sterling example of 
our hero, Robert M. Pirsig in Part IV of ZMM.  He goes 
crazy.  Because, I claim, of the metaphor of system.  
You can disagree with my reading of the end of ZMM here, 
but you haven't even gone close to this, so I have no idea 
what you think about it.

Ian said:
That said "the single system" you refer to is the MoQ - the 
subject of this forum, no ? It's a "systems view" in my use 
of the term, just because I use the term. What it is, is 
what it is ... an framework of evolutionary patterns, based 
on ... etc. But you're not talking about the MoQ anyway.

Matt:
That's a very convenient rhetorical tactic for you to brush 
me away, but this thread started with me saying that
 Steve showed us how to read Pirsig's Metaphysics of 
Quality while warily avoiding the problems of the 
metaphor of system--his circumlocution that when we see 
"Metaphysics of Quality" we read "a contingent, finite 
human being's philosophy."  In this sense, how the _hell_ 
have you been reading me as _objecting_ to any piece of 
the "Metaphysics of Quality" when I've been only suggesting 
a translation scheme--only way I can figure is if you had 
some prior investment in maintaining that the 
_the Metaphysics of Quality itself_ requires it to be read 
_as_ a system (whereas there's some evidence, like the 
quote that Steve offered about it being a rhetorical 
flourish, to the contrary).

But, then, every pass you take over trying to understand 
what I'm saying muddies the water for me in trying to 
figure out what _you're_ saying--whether we're on the 
same page or not, whether we disagree or not, 
whatever--it's getting harder and harder to tell.  Shit, I 
can hardly recognize myself in your posts (like when I 
never said variations of "systems thinking," this 
mysterious importation that you haven't explained, 
simply used (once?)).

Ian said:
I am NOT looking at the world through that MoQ lens.

Matt:
Fine.  Then why are you asking for objections to it (let 
alone from someone who's not objecting to it)?

Ian said:
It's a tool, a system I "could" jettison at any time ... if it 
failed to deliver practical value.

Matt:
Good, good for you.  _Like I keep SAYING!_, I'm sure 
you and most people here won't ever encounter the 
extreme problems engendered by the metaphor of system, 
like going crazy like our hero, Pirsig.  Or even the 
not-as-extreme problems of not spending enough time 
with your family, also like our hero, Pirsig.

Ian said:
(And no way is it the creation of "one dude" - Pirsig 
himself acknowledges the evolved ideas - the net result 
of that evolution to date.)

Matt:
Yeah, well, A) your being pretty narrow with what I said 
(who would think I, the historicist who reads intellectual 
history and gets mocked as a "philosophologist" for it, 
would disagree with that) and B) you forget Pirsig's 
occasional moments of flouting megalomania, like when
he says things to the effect of, "Phaedrus didn't think 
anyone had ever said that before."  Like "putting Quality 
at the center" (again, a recalled paraphrase) of his 
metaphysics--nobody said that?  Well, not exactly those 
words, but what is one supposed to think Dewey meant 
when he said that reality is an evaluative term, some 40 
years before Pirsig was at the U of C?

I agree with you, and most of the time Pirsig would seem 
to, but he does have his moments....

Ian said:
I seem to be saying (and Ron), so live it. But you seem 
to want to break of a piece called philosophy and talk 
about the pros and cons of treating that as a system, 
disembodied from life ? Personally, I can't see philosophy
 as one distinct thing to talk about in any terms, 
something you can stand outside of - use of a given 
metaphysical model (tool) yes, but philosophy as a 
whole ? Can't see it.

Matt:
Really?  Is that what I've been doing?  Breaking off a 
piece called philosophy (yes) and talking about the pros 
and cons of treating it through the metaphor of system 
(yes), but disembodied from life (...?)?  Really?  Is that 
why I keep talking about that broken off piece's 
relationship with other broken off pieces, like the dishes?  
Because I'm ignoring the other hunks of life?  I keep 
talking about Pirsig' _real life_ breakdown because I 
_just_ want to focus on philosophy disembodied from life?  
You really think that's a case?  Golly, I've been completely 
misinformed by my own close reading of what I've been 
writing.  Well, it happens.

Since, when I keep talking about the _practice_ of 
philosophy, I keep talking about the _practice_ writing 
(primarily), since you "can't see philosophy as one 
distinct thing to talk about in any terms, something you 
can stand outside of," I'm guessing (to repeat an 
absurdity I used before to try and wake you up) you see 
everything as writing?  I don't even no what that means, 
except you think washing the dishes mean writing on them, 
but I guess....

Ian said:
What "view" (non-system-thinking view) of 
philosophy-in-itself, are you suggesting ?

Matt:
It's like you're unconsciously avoiding the meaning of 
my words by eristically swapping different contexts in for 
the one I'm using, and now making me say things that 
you know (well, perhaps you don't, since I'm beginning 
to waver on how well you've ever understood me), things 
you know I wouldn't stand for.  I've been saying things I 
know you wouldn't stand for (and have explicitly added 
that to show my understanding of what you really want to 
say) on purpose to help show up what _I'm_ talking about, 
as opposed to the shifted context you keep putting all my 
words.  But that ain't working, and now I'm not even sure 
what it is you "really want to say," so I'm not sure what 
else to say.

What "view of philosophy-in-itself" am I suggesting...  
That's rich--considering I have spent no end of time (even 
within this series of posts, when I said that washing the 
dishes _could_ be a form of philosophy) trying to get 
people to stop defining "philosophy-in-itself."

I am suggesting A) that we get away from the metaphor 
of system when understanding philosophy.  And B) though 
I haven't suggested a different metaphor (that I 
remember), the different conception _I prefer_ (letting 
people, as always, choose there own course) is that of 
philosophy as a kind of criticism--to have criticism, you 
need something to criticize, and hence an implict "other" 
in the conception.  Philosophy is one activity, the activity 
of reflecting on the rest of life, and maybe coming up with 
better ways to go about these other places in life.  That's 
how, I think, Dewey saw it, too.

You say you can't see philosophy as "something you can 
stand outside of."  And yet, you also affirm that 
philosophy is one part of life.  So philosophy is one 
inescapable part of life, there roughly being two things you 
can't escape, life (the whole) and philosophy (a clearly 
very special part)?  Unless one conflates "philosophy" 
with "thinking en general," I don't see how that wouldn't be 
absurd, or an instance of the effects of the system metaphor.

But perhaps you are led to such things via a different, bad 
(to me) route.  But can you at least see how I, who thinks 
that the system metaphor _totalizes_, would think that 
philosophy is best thought of as having an implicit "other" 
it is about (like life as whole or any of its parts), rather 
than as something you can't "stand outside of"?

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