Hi Ian -- > I'm sorry you find that view "cynical". I don't feel cynical, I feel > pragmatic .... I'd like to defend my position .... inserted below.
[Ham, previously]: > You can accept an ontology as a "creative linguistic act" but not as a > theory of "what actually exists". What do you suppose is the > philosopher's > objective in postulating an ontology? Do you think it's simply to dream > up > a Wonderland fantasy for our entertainment or amusement? Is that what you > believe was Pirsig's intention in developing the MoQ? [Ian]: > No Ham. I fully accept it as a "theory" of what exists - I said > "deemed to exist", but not an absolute irrefutable statement about > what "does actually exist". Clearly more insightful, thoughtful > philosophers will "dream up" better (deemed / dreamed) ontologies. I > inhabit a pragmatic world, I don't accuse anyone of fantasies designed > for amusement ... theories of existence are a serious business - > nations go to war over them. But let's not get all sniffy at "dreams" > that inspire - those dreams that reality is made of. > > And I'm not saying an actual ontology doesn't exist either ... > I'm just saying that level of existence has little to do with those > onotologies we can experience and talk about. I'm still puzzled by what you wrote on 10/12: > I didn't say quality or the MoQ construct was an accident of history, > I said the metaphysical tag was, but DMB's take is OK with me, but a > "mistake" nevertheless. - something Pirsig did deliberately for all > the right reasons, but that doesn't mean it was right. The mistake is > to expend effort justifying it as a metaphysics. How you can justify an author's deliberate intent to espouse a metaphysical theory "for all the right reasons" but at the same time call it a "mistake" is beyond my comprehension. Are you implying that his theory is wrong, or that he should not have attempted to make it a metaphysics in the first place? Logically, it would seem that at least one of these criticisms must apply. Of course I criticize the author on both counts. Not only is the MoQ not a complete metaphysical thesis, but Pirsig himself refused to accept the definitions required of metaphysics on the ground that it would destroy his thesis. You and David M. seem to agree that "the 'argument' about whether it is a metaphysics or not is pointless, and the argument about whether as a metaphysics it establishes some fundamental ontology is also pointless." David even equates poetry with philosophy: "Poetry is true...ontology and philosophy," he says If it doesn't matter whether philosophy is a valid ontology or a romantic poem designed to please the reader, it would appear that we've lost the ability to discriminate between legitimate theory and literary prose. [Ian]: > Agreed, legitimate theory. But, I wouldn't be so quick to knock > poetry as "fiction" against scientific theory or philosophical prose > as somehow "reality" .... both are very serious issues, both have an > enormous metaphorical linguistic element relating experience to > perceived / deemed / dreamed reality - some of the best scientific and > philosophical writing uses the best poetry and rhetoric. Einstein > would be the first to defend the poetic beauty of a good theory, > probably more so than the empirical scientific logic (90% > inspiration, 10% perspiration I think he said ? Paraphrasing from > memory "Communication is like a cat, you pinch it's tail and at the > other end its mouth howls, except there is no cat" .... magic.) > > I have never said, and would never say ontology was not "significant" > - but significance is an epistemological concept (semiotic anyway). > It's enormously significant - just not the final word in what actually > exists. Where, then, do we turn for "the final word"? Are you content to base your belief system on poetic reflections of experience? On adages, metaphors, clichés and aphorisms, as opposed to well-thought-out cosmological theories? Has philosophy in our enlightened culture come to this? If everything that can not be empirically known as truth is dismissed as myth, then we believe in nothing and are fulfilling the Ecclesiastical proclamation that "All is vanity". Tell me, Ian, how would you define the purpose of Philosophy? --Ham 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/
