Absolutely not Matt, I'm afraid. Obviously I appreciate you were talking bout systems metaphors, I was just trying to get you to focus on something more specific. I principle, yes, in practice ....
As I said your mentions of Bo here suggest it really is the "system" vs the world problem you are talking about, but I already said that, again, and again. When I talk of the MoQ I talk of a "model" representing the world and its workings, I can tell the model from the world OK. I can also quite easily see the MoQ as an intellectual pattern, a systematic model of the world, within the world. I'm trying to get us beyond all this "obvious" stuff. Living the word is what matters, the "model" - even a systematic model - is just a means of explaining and justifying. Washing dishes is covered perfectly by the MoQ - whenever one needs a moral philosophical explanation of why they need doing - hopefully not too often or the dishes would never get washed. Like, Doh! obviously. I simply say, I still cannot see a single example in this round of mails (or anywhere) not covered by this "model" - system if you prefer. Just list one - go one, restrain your writing hand. Far from being any kind of obsession, it's a release - to get on with living life. Regards Ian On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Matt Kundert<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/ > 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/
