At 12:38 PM 3/30/2008, you wrote: >Hi Marsha, > >No need to apologize, and your light tone did push through. I just >thought I might _clarify_ in case there was any _ambiguity_ for >anybody that I do indeed like ambiguity, but everything in its right place. > >Marsha said: >M1 is the application of a metaphysical framework to experience in >general. M2 is discovering underlying metaphysical "truths" by >investigating particulars experience. > >Matt: >That's not how I intended my definitions, but your's are nice. With >mine I intended to simply continue my age-old pragmatist polemic >against Platonism/essentialism/foundationalism/SOM. In a time past >(say, before fifty years ago), the word "metaphysics" pretty much >meant, and only meant, "inquiry into the fundamental, ahistorical >essence of reality" or some such thing. Nowadays not so much, >because most philosophers have lost their taste for the >eternal. Pirsig, I think, is one of these who, like Dewey, use the >word "metaphysics" to mark continuity with the philosophical >tradition, but break with it by reconstruing it in a way that Plato, >for one, would have found pointless. Plato would have thought >Pirsig was willfully consigning himself to the Shadows, whereas >Plato himself looked to the Form of the Sun. > >So, my definitions had the purpose of flushing out >Platonists. That's the main thing they were designed to do. And >you'll notice that your two are ambiguous as to whether they fall on >the "historical" or "ahistorical" side of the divide--their purpose >for deployment, I think, is different, and so cuts mine at cross-purposes. > >Yours are reminiscent of the Coleridgean Platonist/Aristotelian >divide that Pirsig uses in ZMM. Platonists will think for hours >about "existence"--not any particular bits of existence, like rocks, >or morals, or election fraud, but existence qua existence, just like >Parmenides did. Aristotelians, on the other hand, got to get down >from the heights and see how things work. Sure, the Platonist might >pass them something interesting once in a while, but the >Aristotelian's got to put it to work, set it out there and use it on >stuff--otherwise, what's the point? > >The split still holds great relevance, and has little to do with my >polemics against foundationalism. This is a split between casts of >mind and you can use it easily on people in the MD, splitting up >those who stray more to elaboration and elucidation of the core >structures of the Metaphysics of Quality--those who feel the >pressing need to get the structures _right_--and those who are >impatient to set the MoQ to work in helping us to solve pressing >real world problems, like politics and spiritual crises. > >Matt >_________________________________________________________________
Hi Matt, Thank you for the further explanation. It was helpful. I do not think I will ever fully understand what you talk about. It's probably that I know just enough about Western Philosophy to be dangerous. But then, I have a very strong suspicion that Western Philosophy is dangerous in and of itself. Mark, I hope you have a daily meditation practice. I'd hate to think that you, with your mind, are missing the really goods stuff. Marsha Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
