[MD] Overcoming the System

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Matt, nice to be loved ;-)
Undaunted, I am still just trying to understand your "overcoming the
system" point.

When I clear out the "obvious" (to me) points, I'm just allowing us to
"move on to" ... whatever the point is I'm missing, so you can educate
me, and we can both get on with life, or educate Bo, whichever is the
most fun ....

So here ... you say
{Quote}
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.)
{End Quote}

So we're still not on the same page.
OK, "ism" is a name I can see applying to "a philosophy" (a school of
thought, a "system", a metaphysics, etc.)
But "isms" sounds like a collection of such systems, that make up the
whole tapestry of philsophy and philosophical actvity.
So to clarify what I though I had agreed / understood.
I'm happy with (I see value in) a system metaphor for a philosphy (an ism).
I don't see value in a system metaphor for a philsophy itself (a
collection of isms).

I didn't see your synchronic / diachronic point related to this ...
and you don't give me a clue in this response ... so I'm off to find
where you used it ... hang on.

(BTW whilst I'm doing that, talking of closing down discussion - which
I'm clearly not - have you read Hilary Lawson on "Closure" ? Any
apparent closure is always temporary, for an immediate pragmatic
purpose.)

OK, I'm back ... only in your last (very long) response, you said
{Quote}
"For instance, you say "traditional system," but in my
terms--which, granted, I'm only articulating more fully
here--that's an oxymoron.  I'm not sure he ever said so,
but the reason why I think Rorty preferred "isms" to
"system," and why I do, is because "system" is a synchronic
notion, while an "ism" is a diachronic notion.  The former
rests on a spatial metaphor that, therefore, stretches
throughout your entire web of beliefs.  The latter rests on a
temporal metaphor that, therefore, stretches throughout
time to other people's webs of belief.

The short of it is that Rorty thinks pragmatists should favor
diachronic notions because the notion of a "tradition" is
what hangs our world together after Platonic, ahistorical
foundations go by the wayside.
{End Quote}

I think I understand the words, but I don't think I agree.
Let me put my view on that, and you can tell me ?
(In fact I already said it above - I'm using system synonymous with
ism here, just using it to suggest an ism with systematic coherence -
explicable, useful qualities, etc.)

I don't see either ism or system as exclusively spatial or temporal.
I don't see "traditional system" to be an oxymoron.

(The use of the word system may be recent historically - not sure if
that is actually true of the word or the concept - but no matter.)

In fact (as you know from other channels) I very much see the
evolution - from tradition - in anything useful - think MacIntyre ?
That's why I like (sorry to mention it) the MoQ - that is precisely
the kind of system / ism it is. In fact it is more than that - it
"contains" its own history, as well as the processes for evolving
ongoing history. MoQism. It has a narrative traditional coherence as
well as systematic coherence (to me).

Are you simply saying that the "ism" words emphasizes the historical -
evolved from tradition - nature of a philosophy (however "systematic"
that philosphy is ?).
Great I'm with you, if this is the page we're on.
Roll on MoQism ... situated and situating its place in historical
tradition as a credible serious (and systematic) ism - hopefully :-)

Regards
Ian