[MD] Overcoming the System

[Matt Kundert]

OK, Ian,

Ian said:
For the whole idea of philosphy ? I've already agreed. 
Not much use as a metaphor, though I did point out (as 
an aside on "philsophology") that you actually seemed to 
be doing that yourself.

Matt:
See?  There's the old Ian I love!  "Yes, Matt, I already 
agree with that, of course I do, why wouldn't I, I want 
to move on to..."

I've never quite understood where these places you 
want to move on to are, because they always seem to 
me to shut the conversation down, but that's just me.

Ian siad:
I can't see a problem with using a metaphor of system, 
a system metaphor, systems-thinking ...

Matt:
Good for you, buddy!  Keep it up, I say.  After all, I was 
talking generally about problems (with continual 
reference to Pirsig) that _might_ arise _if_ taken 
seriously--but not you, and that's great (could you help 
Bo out a little?).

Of course, you did seemingly just contradict 
yourself, what with the whole "No, of course a systems 
metaphor for philosophy would be bad" and the "I can't 
see a problem with using a system 
metaphor"....but, whatever!

Ian dais:
I asked a question about a quote you used, and the only 
contentious thing I remarked on in the initial "system" 
was that you branded the MoQ as some weird monster. 
I questioned that, and from that point ...

Matt:
Well--I deeply apologize if my explanation of why I'd say 
"weird monster" bred a very silly discussion where 
nobody knows what's going on.

Ian dias:
MY POINT in response to that [bit about Pirsig I kept 
repeating] (ie having got that already), would be that 
that this seems to be true whether one has system 
metaphor view of philosophy or not ? Do you get my 
point, or am I missing one of yours ?

Matt:
There he is again!

So, yes Ian, of course I already understand that a 
person can become
obsessed for many different reasons.  
I was focusing on the metaphor of
system, which I still 
don't think we're on the same page as.  (I was
talking 
system by using "isms"? Is that what you meant earlier?  
Well, I guess
you didn't like my reply about 
synchronic/diachronic....oh, well.)

But you are free to use whatever metaphor you want, 
just as I am, just so long as we don't get obsessed.  
Good for us!

Ina dsia:
My other - now incidental - points ... in defence of this 
"weird monster" we know as the MoQ were 
(a) it seems fine as system metaphor 
(b) it's primary focus is on experience and awareness 
of life.

Matt:
(a) good for you!
(b) of course it is!  When the focus is not on trying to 
make it look reputable and work, of course!

Ani aisd:
Did I get it in the "clearly, obviously, agreed" point 
above ?

Matt:
Bah, who cares?!

WHEE!!!  Life! Life! Life! Life! Life! Life! Life! Life! Life! 
Life! Life!

Matt




> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 08:40:15 +0200
> From: ian.glendinning at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Overcoming the System
> 
> OK, Matt,
> 
> Metaphor of system, OK. ... for WHAT (is what I'm looking for).
> Ever, at all, for anything ?
> 
> For the whole idea of philosphy ? I've already agreed.
> Not much use as a metaphor, though I did point out (as an aside on
> "philsophology") that you actually seemed to be doing that yourself.
> 
> For any particular philosophy / metaphysics / world-view / model.
> I can't see a problem with using a metaphor of system, a system
> metaphor, systems-thinking ...
> And at this point I move from the general to the particular ... but hold.
> 
> So, I'm re-reading the whole thread, carefully as I can ...
> 
> I asked a question about a quote you used, and the only contentious
> thing I remarked on in the initial "system" was that you branded the
> MoQ as some weird monster. I questioned that, and from that point ...
> for a while I definitely (wrongly) thought we were talking about the
> MoQ.
> 
> The three / four times repeated piece ... this you mean ?
> ""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 ..."
> 
> Clearly, obviously, agreed.
> Apart from a professional philosopher whose life was their philosophy,
> anyone focussing on any philsophy to the exclusion of life would be a
> fool, or an obsessive paranoid of some sort. MY POINT in response to
> that (ie having got that already), would be that that this seems to be
> true whether one has system metaphor view of philosophy or not ? Do
> you get my point, or am I missing one of yours ?
> 
> My other - now incidental - points ... in defence of this "weird
> monster" we know as the MoQ were
> (a) it seems fine as system metaphor
> (b) it's primary focus is on experience and awareness of life.
> Anywhere other than this discussion board, I barely give the MoQ
> "system" a second thought - I focus on the qualities of living life.
> It only enters my head as a system, if I stop to analyse / debate some
> knotty moral decision point.
> 
> Did I get it in the "clearly, obviously, agreed" point above ?
> 
> Regards
> Ian
> 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/

_________________________________________________________________
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