Hey Ian, Ian said: Obviously I can accept that "in principle" getting too attached to - taking too seriously - any one system view of the world, could lead to being un-necessarily boxed in, even if just through complacent "haughty" pride. But I'm being quite pragmatic here ...
Matt: The phrase "any one system" isn't quite what I mean--I'm talking about _system_, the metaphor. Let me try and explain the pragmatics as I see them: you ask, "In practice what is there (anything specific you can identify) that is beyond the MoQ ?" My natural, pragmatic inclination is to answer, "Well, just about everything else...." In literal fact--everything _else_. I'm talking about the relationship between philosophy--as a practice--and life--the most general term for everything. Philosophy, and therefore any philosophical system, is just one part of life. I know you, and pretty much everyone else, understands that, and hell, so has every philosopher pragmatically understood that. What I'm suggesting is that the _metaphor of system_ gives rise to what in other circumstances (outside of doing philosophy) is just an absurd Skutvikism: there's nothing beyond the Metaphysics. Say that to a regular person who doesn't do philosophy and they might say, "Well, how about those dishes that need washing?" "Oh, no, see those are in the MoQ. See, all we need to do is extrapolate the static patterns principle to get four different kinds, which encapsulate the inorganic patterns of the porcelain and its spatialtemporal position, the biological residue of the food we ate, and the social patterns of the practice of cleaning, and even the prior using, of plates." "Oh, no, honey--I'm talking about you washing the fucking dishes, which aren't in your MoQ, but _over there_, where I put them after I had to clear the table, after I cooked dinner, because you've been too busy at the computer talking about 'MoQ, MoQ, MoQ.' I'm talking about, _go wash the goddamn dishes_." Do you see the "actual restraints of the system view" I'm attempting to point at? When you're doing philosophy, you're not doing a whole bunch of other stuff. It's nothing particular about the MoQ--it's the fundamental fact of any social practice. The metaphor of system is a metaphor that can give rise to an obsession over a single thing (the practice of philosophy, whether through writing or just sitting and thinking) over and above all other things--again, think of Pirsig and how he broke because of his obsession in ZMM. You say, "I mean, I'm not suggesting MoQ full stop, that's it, job, done - philosophers can all shuffle off and retire. There are plenty of problems to solve, questions to answer. Plenty of bio-socio-intellectual patterns to work and re-work for the good of humanity - that's what the MoQ is about. But this all seems to be "within" the bounds of the MoQ - the MoQ description of the world - to me ?" Sure, sure--of course there are tons of problems the MoQ can try and fix. But in the course of flexing the system to fix problems, are you fixing the problems or fixing the problems of the MoQ? A good system-answer would be they're one and the same, though the dishes might object. You say you aren't suggesting that philosophers can all "shuffle off and retire." But look at your next sentence: "There are plenty of problems to solve, questions to answer." _Look at how ambiguous this statement is just following the previous one_. Are you talking about philosophical problems, or the problems of humanity? A philosopher might think they're one and the same, but his (because it is still a male-dominated profession, even amateurly) wife (because it is still dominated by straight dudes) might object in the name of holy hell because those goddamn dishes still won't clean themselves. The MoQ just describes the world--sure, we all (most of us) understand that. It's a tool we use to understand certain problems in their most general terms. Sure, sure. Nobody uses the MoQ to wash the dishes. But--have you ever gotten in trouble for spending too much time writing posts to the MD? If you've ever been told by a loved one, "Hey, spend some time with me, rather than whatever the hell you've been doing for the last couple hours," then I think you'll understand what I mean when I say, the practice of philosophy is one separable part of life. Pirsig understood this keenly because _he_ took philosophy too seriously--ZMM was built around that theme. Rorty understood this keenly because _he_ took philosophy too seriously--his playful rhetoric was an avoidance scheme. I understand this keenly because _I_ take philosophy too seriously--look at how much time I spend here, look at how much time I put into crafting these posts, how much time I put into writing and reading. One of the main things Pirsig and Rorty were doing _for philosophers_ was trying to make them more self-conscious about what philosophy can and can't do for you. Pirsig's attack on the obsession about Truth over Good was of this ilk--there are an infinite number of truths, sentences that are true, but if we spend _all_ of our time hunting them down, we'll neglect the Good, like spending time with our families. Rorty's public/private distinction was built around this wisdom, too. It is quite likely that most everyone here performs the balancing act of life much better and more easily than I do--but those who don't and are conscious of it try to ferret out bits of wisdom about what it is _in philosophy_ that might be causing these obsessions, like Freud hunting through the unconscious. I'm simply suggesting that System-Rhetoric, the metaphor of system for describing our philosophical endeavors, might be one more of those sneaky little bastards, like putting Truth over the Good, that'll get you, even though I doubt anyone here needs that advice, since everyone's already well-adjusted. With all that, let me repeat my favorite two paragraphs from the last post (and notice my emphasis, not on "a," as in single, but "philosophy"): The deal is, if you're focused on the system (a _philosophy_), then you're ability to repair _the system_ becomes your ability to not fall into disarray in the world. If you come across a problem that you can't for the life of you figure out how to fix (we can't be ingenious all the time)--isn't that _exactly_ what happened to Pirsig in ZMM...? But, if instead you are focused on life, then you're already well aware that there are tons of problems that you face, not all of them at once, some you defer, like that problem with your philosophy you just...can't...work...out--ah, screw it, I need to do the dishes right now, or feed myself, or put that cigarette out so it doesn't burn into my fingers. I'm I making more sense yet? 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/
