Hi Magnus, I'm sorry you misunderstood my note to Bo, but it was just in response to Bo. For whatever reason, I do not find conversation profitable with him, and I was simply taking the time again to explain why. I wasn't in my first post trying to be "authoritative," just being clear in distinguishing things I think ought to be distinct, clarity on these issues being what you were looking for. If making choices in discussion partners is offensive to you, I apologize, but I don't think that is something anyone should apologize for.
Anyhoo: In response to my willy-nilly slotting of you as in league with Plato (which I see as negative), you clarified a few of the things you were saying. I'll begin backwards in your response because the glosses occur that way (the last paragraph is paramount to understanding the third, which is paramount to understanding what you mean by "sibling"). Magnus said: 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? Matt: If that's all your distinction means, the common sense distinction between, say, tigers and talking about tigers, then not only can I go along, but I would emphasize that we couldn't get along without it. When the tiger comes at me, it doesn't help to say, "By 'tiger' I mean a sweet, cuddly stuffed animal." If uttering that incantation is all I do, I will get eaten. We call "magic" the idea that a string of words could have that kind of effect (though, is not metaphysics, as Queen would say, "A Kind of Magic"? Yes, but this is a parenthetical, not a place to explain how). However, I think you are saying more than that. If you weren't, then I'd have to suggest not using "the metaphysics itself" synonymously with "causally-independent-of-words reality." "Metaphysics" is usually designated a branch of philosophy, an activity, and not wholesale equation with reality. Matt said: 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"). Magnus said: 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? Matt: Well, that depends on which philosophical community you're talking about, and in fact on how you're talking about them. Most so-called "realists" would absolutely affirm that there is a reality outside of our words about reality and that we need to get those words closer to representing that reality. Most pragmatists would absolutely affirm that there is a reality distinct from our words (you can tell the difference in writing by the word "about"), but that these realists are talking Platonically when they talk of "representing"--the whole metaphor of distance is bad news. However, I suspect that's not what you are talking about when you say "the metaphysics is outside of reality". This begins to hinge on what you mean by "reality," because why aren't our words apart of reality? I did carefully choose my words in the two definitions, but the choices were focused on distinguishing pragmatism (words as tools to deal with reality) from Platonism (words as mirrors of a foundation). Your distinction between "the metaphysics" and "reality" is beginning to sound either other-worldly (like Plato's Forms) or idealistic (like Kant's noumena). I think both are bad, and I will say out loud that I deny that anything we say necessarily presupposes either image or apparatus. In fact, my second definition, interpreted appropriately, _does_ say that "the metaphysics is outside reality" because the latter sounds Platonic or nothing. The second definition is meant to say it "out loud," whereas the first is not mouthing anything unless you interpret all sayings as implicitly, out of necessity, stating a kind of Platonism. Magnus said: 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. Matt: This is the crux of the issue because what we mean by "metaphysics" (and also, it turns out, "reality") will determine in what way we think Pirsig's philosophy and his enemy moniker SOM are similar and dissimilar. I would say: they are both siblings because both are a collection of words that attempt to help us deal with reality. They are different because SOM supposes that it gets reality correct, whereas Pirsig's philosophy supposes that all philosophies are better or worse at dealing with reality, but that there is no One Way That Reality Is, which is the only way to make sense of "correct." The thing I don't know is how exactly you see them as similar or dissimilar, for the reasons displayed above. "The metaphysics is outside of reality" strikes me as odd for a Pirsigian because Pirsig teaches that experience=reality, meaning anything outside, tout court, of experience doesn't exist--if you can't (even theoretically) experience it, it doesn't exist. I don't think Pirsig is talking about a framework of laws that determine reality, even when he says suggestively, "There already _is_ a metaphysics of Quality." (Lila, Ch. 9, 124) Pirsig is saying that reality exists--we just splice it up differently according to our metaphysics, our understanding, our assumptions, our words. (Arlo was emphasizing this image, the analytic knife, in his answer.) Scientific laws are ghosts--Newton's law of gravity was not a really good stab in the direction of "_the_ metaphysics," the determiner and ruler of reality, but a really good way of dealing with reality that we pass on to our children. Affinity for other-worldliness would lead one to believe that the _ghosts_ are in charge of reality, but the ghosts Pirsig is talking about are the voices of actual people across time who lived _in_ reality, voices giving us tips about living in it. Matt > 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). >> 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 _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan 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/
