>> Matt's 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"). >> >> Hi Matt & All >> >> I see the best way to understand metaphysics is definition number 1. The >> only reality we have is the reality of our experience. This is a >> metaphysical assumption >> I am happy to make about my and our experience. You can try other >> assumption if you like but I think they get us into a bit of a mess, but >> feel free to try you might comeup with something new and better and does >> not create a mess. We try to make sense of our experience-reality. We can >> do this, I'd suggest (in agreement with Pirsig), because we do not live >> in >> a static experience-reality. The most basic approach/langauge/concepts we >> adopt to make sense of our experience-reality is the free play of >> metaphysics. These assumption change our experience-reality as do all our >> attempts to understand/talk about/conceive our reality. To make sense of >> our experience-reality we have to speculate about and analyse our >> experience-reality because without such embellishment there really is no >> hope of making any sense of it. Without assuming that the world >> transcends >> our individual experience (in terms of extending beyond our sense, and >> beyond the present, i.e. having a past and future, and that we can make >> use of cultural memory and the accounts of reality-experience that other >> people share with us, and a cosmic past before cultural memory or even >> life at all) we would not be able to make much sense of >> life-experience-reality). And yes, lots of metaphysics and assumptions >> get >> laid down culturally before the modern world and we need to work hard to >> make all these assumptions conscious, this is the heart of philosophy. >> The >> other main part of philosophy is creative, like Heidegger & Pirsig, >> creating and exploring new assumptions and concepts and values. >> >> What to make of version two of the definition? I look at it like this. >> Various sets of assumptions/metaphysics are tried out like dualism, >> materialism, idealism. These metaphysics are often rather >> un-self-conscious. They take a few aspects of reality-experience and >> think >> that they can describe and explain the whole >> of experience-reality in somewhat limited terms. So that matter can be >> explained as an idea, or an idea and thought in terms of material >> interactions. Where such approaches are clearly reductive in this sense >> (suggesting there are certain real essences in terms of which every thing >> else must be understood ), and can be seen as repressing one side of >> fairly obviously contrasting opposites, then people like Rorty and >> Derrida >> are quite right to point out their self defeating analyses and arbitrary >> values. SOM is this making certain qualities of experience into essences. >> Recognising all qualities as grounded in our human experience is to >> resist >> such type 2 metaphysics. Matt sometimes emphasises language-experience >> over the broader catogory of all of our (thought-felt-said-valued, >> touched, pushed, smelt, tasted, moody, etc) experience and I moan at him >> about this. All these attempts to make sense of our experience and >> analyse >> our experience and tell a narrative about the coming to be of our >> experience changes our experience, embellishes and makes more complex our >> experience. Such is DQ and the SQ it creates and retains. In this sense >> there is more to experience than actual experience. This is the reality >> of >> what is possible, that our lives are open to change and the creative >> embellishing of our experience. We slice, dice and select from a very >> rich >> plurality to make sense of the reality we are involved in chosing to >> notice. Reality both seems to impose itself on us (can't ignore the heat >> of the sun) and offers more possibilities than we can handle so that we >> have to be selective about what we notice and try to make sense of. And >> there are clearly many different ways to make sense of experience and >> these cultures alter the experiences we have. Can we compare these >> different cultural experiences and say which is better? To some extent >> maybe, but maybe not with certainty of which is better. But it makes a >> difference, and such choices decide what future we seek and which we >> consider better. There isthe danger of much conflict here, but perhaps >> less so if we see each other's cultures as valid possibilities. And if we >> were open in this way we may make room for people to make their own free >> choices about what values they wish to pursue. >> >> But can we really talk about 'reality' in the sort of terms that Bo wants >> to? This is problematic. I do agree that there is something powerful and >> attractive about terms like SQ and DQ. Are they better than SOM's subject >> and object? Maybe. Maybe they are better because SQ and DQ both have >> their >> value, perhaps equal value. >> SOM is more contradictory about the value of subject and objects, setting >> up a kind of war between their different value. Is MOQ closer to reality >> than SOM? >> What can we say? Does MOQ give us a better reality? Does MOQ resonate >> better with our experience? Does MOQ give us a reality that makes more >> sense to >> us and relieves us of the contradictions brought into our experience by >> SOM? Maybe. Maybe MOQ is our preferred reality. But it is a reality given >> to us by the sense of our experience we are able to make throught the >> metaphysics of MOQ. It is always a humanly constructed reality but it is >> undoubtedly one embedded >> in a more than human cosmos (undoubtedly for the purposes of making any >> sense of our life-reality-experience). And there is always the chance of >> improving our concepts/assumptions/metaphysics to make even more sense of >> our experience. >> >> Any help? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
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/
