Hey Gav, Gav said: i like the holism idea in reln to language: language is def a holistic affair - a word doesn't make sense except in relation to all other words...the definitional train can go on for ever - an infinite overlapping circuit.
but we are in the static realm here surely. what of DQ? this is central to the MOQ and pirsig and radical empiricism. how does the self-sufficient holistic world of language deal with this...i don't get how, do you? do you mean that we are entrapped within language when we talk of any philosophy, metaphysical or otherwise? when we talk, think, fullstop? if so i get this and agree. Matt: We're sort of in the static realm. Remember when Pirsig says that only people can be Dynamic? The way I understand Pirsig, we shouldn't use a spatial metaphor for static and Dynamic, and so avoid the question of when we're "in" which "realm." The trouble is that such a question sort of supposes that we can be all in one or the other, but Pirsig's reminder that only people can be Dynamic should, partly at least, remind us that you're only breaking some patterns when being Dynamic, not all of them (you're inorganic ones are usually fine). The other thing is that I don't think we should think of language as an "entrapment." There is a sense in which, once we become linguistic (once we become sapient as opposed to sentient), we can't go back, but there are other senses in which we shouldn't make too big a deal out of it (like occurent pictoral thoughts of sunrises--how linguistic is that?). The reason I mention both those things is because philosophers like Rorty and Donald Davidson have suggested that we not think of language as a layer we place on top of the world, or experience, or whatever. Language, like our hands, are tools we use to interact with the world, or experience (or whatever). (In fact, the analogy between body parts and language--and how much of "us" is left when you start removing these things--is good to meditate on.) Using our words or our hands is a skill, a kind of know-how, not a rule-governed set of conventions, like a board game we can opt in and out of. (On the other hand, philosophers like Rorty and Wittgenstein have gotten a lot of mileage out of the analogy between language and games.) This has led Davidson to say that "there is no such thing as language, not at least as philosophers and linguists have often supposed" (to paraphrase). As I see it, being Dynamic isn't a break _away_ from language wholesale, being Dynamic are breaks in static patterns, whether inorganic, bio, social, or intellectual. Originality in language, like great poets attempt, are one kind of Dynamic Quality we should expect of language-users. I've had a lot of different feelings about Pirsig's formula about the contradictory nature of metaphysics. But with ineffability, I wrote a couple posts about DQ, language and Pirsig that suggest some thoughts: http://pirsigaffliction.blogspot.com/2006/04/language-som-and-pathos-of-distance.html and http://pirsigaffliction.blogspot.com/2006/04/dynamic-quality-as-pre-intellectual.html Gav said: life comes first.....i think that psychological nominalism or holistic theories of language/culture are very useful given this caveat is understood and heeded. but maybe i am missing something? Matt: I don't know. My thought tends to run, "How could life not come first? Life is everything." As I understand Dewey, his notion of indirect experience was reflective experience, but _direct experience_ wasn't necessarily non-linguistic. Abstract, reflective thinking pulls us out of "direct experience," but this is to say it pulls us out of our typical habits with which we approach the world. People who live in their heads live in worlds constructed out of their imagination, an indirect world. But people who write, read, or talk a lot aren't necessarily neglecting direct experience, in Dewey's sense. We can easily acheive equillibrium in our lives (that old Greek chestnut about moderation). Maybe we might think of my difference with DMB as follows: DMB thinks radical empiricism returns us to the scene of life, a counter to abstract philosophical sterilities. I can empathize with the formulation, as the idea of pragmatism "returning us to the scene of life" is a formula I've used over and over in the stuff on my blog. I have a certain fondness for the phrase. But, what I think we should rather say in most cases, is that philosophy is abstract by nature--that's what it is--and returning to the scene of life is something that _people_ need to figure out how to do, not necessarily philosophies (why would we necessarily want theoretical physics to do so?). Philosophy is Dewey's indirect experience--returning to life is knowing, as Wittgenstein put it, when to put philosophy down. To say that we should return _philosophy_ to the scene of life, I have sympathy with that, too. But I also have a strong regard for the division of labor, and a suspicion that if we let a thousand flowers bloom, there's a good chance we might find one we like in a garden that we didn't plant. That's what I take amateur philosophy to be--one of our major purposes is to steal other people's flowers and bring the ones we like, even if they were grown in a sterile hydroponic farm, back to the grubby garden we got going behind the house. We shouldn't rip on the hydroponic farmers too much--without them, we wouldn't have gotten that flower and, hey, at the end of the day, they go back to their houses, too. Matt _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail®: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009 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/
