Hi Matt
> As someone who holds down at least two part-time jobs (Rortyan and
> Pirsigian), though probably more (Fishian, Bloomian, etc.), I'm required by
> law to give two answers (though, sadly, there's no law that requires people
> to read the answers the same way I do).
>
> 1) Metaphysics is the general framework, or understanding, or set of
> assumptions, that people unconsciously (with various degrees of
> self-consciousness) interpret, or see, or live in the world. As an activity,
> it is the attempt to make the unconscious self-conscious (this activity is
> also known in some circles as "philosophy").
>
> 2) Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that attempts to display the
> basic, universal, ahistorical underpinnings of reality (this activity is also
> sometimes known in some circles as "Platonism," and in a few circles the
> acronymic "SOM").
>
> And, as I am wont to do, I have slotted everyone who has given an answer (or
> commented, before giving their own--against Magnus' rules, on someone else's)
> willy-nilly into two categories--
>
> People who like the first definition: Arlo, Steve, SA, Dewey, Pirsig
>
> People who like the second definition: Me (Matt), Magnus, Marsha, Ian, Plato,
> Rorty
>
> According to the definitions, people who _do_ the first: Me (Matt), Marsha,
> Craig, Ian, Arlo, Steve, SA, Dewey, Pirsig, Rorty
>
> According to the definitions, people who _do_ the second: Magnus, Plato
>
> These capricious designations are, of course, subject to change, but they do
> highlight two things--
>
> 1) I don't really care what kind of definition people use for "metaphysics,"
> so long as they read other people with care enough to consider we all may be
> using slightly idiosyncratic usages.
>
> 2) I find Magnus' distinction between an "understanding/model of the
> metaphysics" and "the metaphysics itself" to be troubling for an
> self-declared Pirsigian (as, I glean, others also feel).
Yes, I thought of commenting on that in my first post, but it's better to
answer
a real question, instead of inventing one.
As metaphysics models, I see the MoQ and SOM as siblings. They are of the same
kind. Both do their best to explain our reality, but as a self-declared
"Pirsigian" (although I'd prefer MoQist), I do think the MoQ does a better job.
However, both of your definitions above use similar wordings to distance the
metaphysics from the reality it explains. One use "general framework, or
understanding, or set of assumptions", the other use "basic, universal,
ahistorical underpinnings". I interpret both of these as carefully chosen words
to hint that the metaphysics is outside of reality without really saying it out
loud, because that would probably be considered "bad" in the philosophy
community. Am I right?
And about the distinction between "understanding/model of the metaphysics" and
"the metaphysics itself": If we here on MD come to a complete consensus about
changing the biological level, i.e. changing the general framework,
underpinnings etc. Would that affect all life on earth?
Magnus
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/
