Hi Matt, Aside - I took your "[Pirsig's MoQ] was created by a person responding to his own personal, unique problems" As the implied statement "... and therefore not necessarily / generally relevant to others ..." (I don't think the problems he was addressing were unique - I happen to identify very strongly with them - "there but for the grace ..." I have said many times.)
And I make no claims of philosophical originality by Pirsig - except in his rhetorical writing - that is perfectly clear in many places. My interest here is the practical value of the MoQ, not in Pirsig, except as a fellow human. But no matter ... on to the substance of your contention. You said "If you get hung up on system, you'll begin to think you live _inside_ the system, like a box ... I'm not in a box" Me neither - Let me say again. The "universal framework" is no box. It is certainly an evolved collection of tools - physical, biological, social and intellectual patterns. But it is an evolving collection of inteconnected patterns too - it can go anywhere - including the social / cultural / intellectual patterns, that might box us in if we simply accepted they were static. But they don't "go anywhere" .. in an anything goes sense ... the dependencies and inter-relationships between the patterns arising (evolving) - the tools & processes - are part of the framework. I see no boundaries to this "box". A "system" that quite explicitly has expanding boundaries. Why "overcome" the system, if it works fine, and encourages us to take it where it needs to go - what can there possibly be "outside" this system whose basis is .... possibility ? I think the crux is your emphasis on the word *inside*. It's the old finger & moon, model & world, metaphysics & reality issue - I hesitate to say confusion - surely ? Regards, Ian On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Matt Kundert<[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Ian, > > Ian said: > Matt where you say "Pirsig wanted to say ..." > "Every person needs their own philosophy, because the arc > of America is our individuality." > Where do you get that from ? > > Matt: > It's a melting of things he said: things like the philosophology > section (where he states the only way to read philosophy is > to first figure out what you believe) and at the beginning of > Lila where he says the Metaphysics of Quality already exists. > And the latter half of the comment is the Emersonian > connection, which Pirsig, as one example, incarnates in his > cooptation of Native American culture. > > In this particular melting, Pirsig both thinks that philosophy > is wide and idiosyncratic but also a bit necessary, for it is > the wisdom we bring to every unique situation we confront > as individuals--so we _need_ to become more explicit and > self-comprehending about it. And in that sense, I don't > exactly disagree. > > Ian said: > The thing you call the weird monster "MoQ created to be > transcended" Is the thing that make it so attractive - as a > "universal" framework of evolutionary layers of patterns, (as > I've said before), it contains the means of its own evolution. > All its own history as well as its future. Steve clearly sees > that too - "never ... the final word on reality". > > Matt: > Yeah, but it is exactly my contention that we are decieving > ourselves if we think that _this_, its self-transcending quality, > is what makes this "system" so attractive--for _what_ > evolves? _US!_ _We_ are the ones who evolve, we are > ideas, but we are ideas in motion, we use them. > Self-transcendence isn't even new with Pirsig (Hegel?), so > it makes even less sense to lay our weight on this aspect. > > I think it is a "bad faith" aspect--"the Metaphysics of Quality" > is as much a rhetorical figure as Richard Rorty's infamous > "we's". Who are these we's? people ask. What is this > Metaphysics of Quality that stands apart from Pirsig? Both > of them are rhetorical strategies of invitation to the outside, > making your thoughts useful to others. I have no problem > with that, but to say that the MoQ "contains the means of > its own evolution" is about as helpful and obvious as saying > that each person contains the means of their own > evolution--of course we do, who else would? Perhaps > people needed that to be made explicit in "their system," but > by making a "system" state it explicitly still obfuscates (by > virtue of the system being the focus of attention) the fact > of individuals facing life--because every individual facing life > as an individual facing life _knows_ that they are in constant > flux and evolvement of the tools of engagement, of their > ideas, their wisdom. > > Philosophical _systems_ have blotted out life from > Philosophy's Sight, which is what Pirsig wanted to correct, > he wanted to bring life back to philosophy, as much as > philosophy back to life. It is Steve's circumlocution--that > saying the MoQ is historical is just to say that Pirsig is a > finite, historically situated being--that frees us from the > temptation towards bad faith, by taking the "system" too > seriously, which is not what Pirsig wanted. His rhetorical > structure--his mode of externalizing his ideas for public > scrutiny and acceptance--forced him into this position, but > if we read carefully, as I think Steve has, we can avoid > what just looks like a pratfall. Like when Kierkegaard said > of Hegel that if he'd just prefaced his Science of Logic with, > "This is all just a thought-experiment," he would've been the > greatest philosopher who ever lived; but as it is, he's just a > fool. > > If you get hung up on system, you'll begin to think you live > _inside_ the system, like a box, rather that it just being a > collection of tools, like the many, many others you use in life > (though none of them are "systems"). You get inside the box, > and then wonder how it goes anywhere--well, you're the one > who got inside the box. I go wherever I want just > fine--of course, I'm not in a box. > > I don't think Steve sees clearly what you think he does, > because I think Steve has moved beyond system. Following > Steve's circumlocution, when one says, "Pirsig never said the > MoQ has the final word on reality," we can understand it is the > truest, obvious wisdom of life, and yet one philosophy needs most: > no person ever has the final word on reality. > > And I never said that the Metaphysics of Quality is "unique and > personal to Pirsig in its value." You misunderstood what I was > saying. > > Matt > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. > http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009 > 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/
