Hi Mr. 2, Let me first say that I'm not exactly talking about a "systems approach" to understanding, at least not as the jargon is used--as I understand it--in many of the social sciences, and likely gleaned from watching the natural sciences. I'm talking about the metaphor of system in philosophy.
Though, granting that, what you say isn't too far off from my topic: you ask if we _can_ create a super system that will leave us philosophically satisfied. Sure, it's not that hard, though just as long as you are easily satisfied. Which is the rub--if you listen to critics (with their own minds and ideas about it) or have a high internal sense of dissatisfaction (which is like being your own critic), then you'll never be satisfied, and you'll never get around to doing the dishes (and no, I won't do yours, I have a pile of my own). You also ask if this system might help you do the dishes, and I have two answers--yes and no. It's difficult to imagine how doing philosophy qua philosophy will help you do the dishes qua dishes. Though, on the other hand, stranger things have happened--maybe it could, people find the strangest wisdom from the strangest places. And, indeed, nothing says that an _act_ of doing the dishes can't also, concurrently, be an _act_ of philosophy--I'm not going to say it ain't. _But_, and here's my concern, the way philosophy is traditionally done is through writing, usually precipitated by pondering. One might reasonably ponder while doing the dishes, but it's hard to imagine writing while doing the dishes--it just seems physically impossible. And here's the even bigger crux--one might, especially here at the MD, object to this traditional image of how philosophy is done. Screw writing, you say, my life is a philosophy. Okay, that's fine--but it is difficult to imagine what that means if you see philosophy through the metaphor of _system_, as Pirsig does occasionally. What does having a philosophical system mean if not something that is worked out somewhere on paper? One can recur to their amazing memory all they want, for most us, if anything systematic is getting done, it'll be in front of paper. Now, one _can_ call the human organism a "system." Yeah, sure, easy as pie now to answer the question, "can you create a system which includes the two?"--nature already did. That's my favorite part about Douglas Adams' story--the computer system that was going to tell us the Question to Life, the Universe, and Everything was, the Earth. But calling a human a "system," and building from there, doesn't seem to get to the nub of my concern. "So, is an all revealing system of systems possible?" Sure, call it "life," and you can rest easy and go do the dishes. "Many of those in deep mystical or religious or philosophic thought believe so, and have found it." Yeah, but why should we take their word for it? Are you going to take mine? Matt _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_facebook: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/
