Hi Matt, For me - in this conversation - metaphysics is just a word, a handle for the thing we're talking about. Unlike (you say) Magnus does, I don't see that as universal and permanent "outside" reality. You knew that.
(As you and DM confirmed it's words, metaphors, rhetoric all the way down - turtles even.) To repeat my point - I wasn't at all offended by your classification - I said "no matter". My point is this thing we call MoQ can be seen "universal and permanent within reality" BECAUSE that does not mean "unchanging". It is "universal and permanently evolving" according to its own defintion of itself within reality. FWIW I only use the word metaphysics in the expression "MoQ". I would always use "world model" or similar in polite conversation ;-) Ian On 3/1/08, Matt Kundert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hey Ian, > > You say you were surprised about some of my slotting, but you shouldn't have > been. I think you (and a few others, perhaps) may have misunderstood a > little my two classifications. I'm known as long-winded, but perhaps my new > attraction to brevity got away from me. Let me emphasize the first > classification: people who like which _definition_. I like the second > definition, but I think it represents all that is unholy in philosophy. > > The definitions: > 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"). > > The capricious classifications: > 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 > > The above were designed for one purpose--to elaborate my position on > "metaphysics," which is Janus-faced because I have two philosophical parents. > Mom (Pirsig) likes the word "metaphysics" and uses it freely to describe his > philosophy. Dad (Rorty) doesn't like the word "metaphysics" and generally > uses it to describe what he's critiquing. What to do? > > Well, it turns out that if you look closely, they are generally using two > different definitions of what "metaphysics" is. The first classification, > who "likes" which, was intended to display which definition people were wont > to use when they were doing philosophy. The second, who "does" which, was > intended to display--whether or not they understand themselves as doing > so--which kind of metaphysics they were enacting. Hence: Pirsig likes and > does the first definition and Rorty likes the second, but does the first. > This happens because people who like the second definition fall into two > categories: 1) unabashed Platonists/SOMists who fight against > pragmatists/Pirsigians and 2) pragmatists/Pirsigians who use "metaphysics" as > the handle on which to grasp their enemy, Platonists/SOMists. _Pirsig_ > doesn't use the word for that purpose, but I understand his purpose and so > don't get too upset what he uses the word neutrally and Rorty uses it > pejoratively. > > Anyways, that was just to clarify for everyone in case there were any > misunderstandings. > > Your further comments suggest, of course, that you would like my first > definition of "metaphysics," which I take to be in the model mode. I was > just going off your "three cheers" to Marsha's comment about "Unmetaphysics," > which, rightly or wrongly, I took as implicitly hooking onto my second > definitoin (metaphysics as bad). > > Overall, I know you're as Janus-faced as me. You know how oscillate between > the two definitions according to who you're talking to and don't (as far as > I've ever been able to tell) really care all that much which one is used. > > But, you said you found Magnus' distinction (which I'll have more to say in a > moment in a post to Magnus--which Magnus jumped the gun a little in thinking > I wasn't going to supply) useful and not troubling. "I would be troubled, if > I thought someone was looking to find a metaphysics 'independent' of its > description." I think our rhetorical strategies are very important (since, > following Pirsig, everything is rhetorical), and I found quite troubling the > strategy of suggesting that we have, on the one hand, various metaphysics we > put forward and, on the other, _the_ metaphysics, which is permanent and > universal (since it has, within it, the ability to explain > _everything_--past, present, and future data). Magnus says "_the_ > metaphysics" is "outside our reality" (very unPirsigian) and his last > paragraph of description sounds Platonic, if nothing else. Even if Magnus > meant everything he said, and/or even if you reconstrued everything he said, > as being perfectly in line with Pirsig-the-pragmatist/antiPlatonist, I would still not be as insouciant as I am generally about the word "metaphysics." > > Keep "metaphysics" as a term in your philosophy? Fine. But don't gloss > permanent, neutral frameworks that can be gotten closer or farther away from. > > Matt > > > > Surprised to find me in your second list in terms of which form I > > "like", but as you indicate later, the one I "do" is the other. So no > > matter. > > > > Your conclusions > > (1) Agreed. Caveat definitions / metaphors etc. (Care is a good word BTW.) > > (2) I find this "distinction" between the metaphysics and its > > description useful rather than troubling. I would be troubled, if I > > thought someone was looking to find a metaphysics "independent" of its > > description. > > > > Let me explain. > > > > I would have used the word model (or framework) for what a metaphysics is. > > I would say the best model is the one that is both most comprehensive > > and most useful, in describing, explaining and predicting the state > > and behaviour of the real world (most "cash" value). I'm a pragmatist > > in practice. > > I would say that model needs to "support" (describe / explain / > > predict) an ontology (of what exists) and epistemology (of what may be > > known) and an ethics (of what is of value, what to care about). > > I would say that such a model must be assumed to be contingent, > > however good and comprehensive it is "there is always a hole in my > > metaphysics" - never entirely "fundamental" in any absolute sense, > > just fundamental enough for its maximum pragmatic use. > > > > The VERY REASON I like the MoQ (find it the best model) is that it > > models its own evolution. It is its own description. It is its own > > grandpa. This kind of cyclical relationship (almost) guarantees it's > > longevity - evolutionary change beats static certainty every time - > > since however good it is to start with it can (almost) only get better > > - if never absolutely perfect. > > > > Am I making any sense ? > > Ian > _________________________________________________________________ > Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. > http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join > 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/ > 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/
