Hi Ian, Yeah, I'm beginning to think you don't see it. I thought at first it was just one of those, Oh, yeah, I see Matt, I already agree Matt, things you do, but
When you take my _specific_ example of washing the dishes and say the MoQ perfectly covers that, giving us a moral explanation (like we needed one) then you are missing my boat. Because that's not why I started talking about dishes. Which is fine, like I keep saying, I doubt you, or anyone else, consults the MoQ before doing the dishes. But the concern I was addressing is the relationship between the _practice_ of philosophy (guided in this case by the system metaphor) and the _practice_ of anything else. You say, "in principle" vs. "in practice," but I'm trying to remind you of the _pragmatist position_ that _everything is a practice_. I'm talking about two practices running up against each other, and you wave your hand dismissively with a "well, in principle they could..." and then you run over to the one practice, philosophy, and say, "Well, how are you going to break this system?" I don't care about breaking your system, I care about the real life experience of balancing two practices. Right now I care about the interplay, the thin moments we have _between_ two practices, not the specifics of the moments _within_ either practice (philosophy or dishes). You're trying to move me beyond the obvious stuff--I'm trying to point out the things you're missing when you perform the "obvious stuff." It's not about--it was _never_ about--an "example" not being covered by the MoQ. Of course there's going to be all kinds of here-to-fore unthought-up shit that are going to bunch up the MoQ's gears--isn't that the point in acknowledging the MoQ's historicity, that it might someday be transcended? So why are you begging for it? That's not the point in acknowleding it, is it? I'm not talking about _actually_ breaking it, I'm talking about the _possibility_ of it breaking, such that _why are we even using a metaphor where your explanation and justification for the world could come crashing down if it "breaks"?_ It's as if you were daring me to break the system, "C'mon, do it, try to break it, I dare you, just try" and then when I fail (which is based a lot on the other person's ingenuity, not mine), the person with the system gets to feel smug--but see the attitude? The critic didn't break the _system_ so you feel even more at home _in the system_. I'm talking about real, psychic consequences of hubris--why even taunt an inevitability? I'm talking about the acknowledged _inevitable moment_ when the system breaks. I'm talking about _specific moments_ when it has--you want a specific moment of what I'm talking about, I've pointed in each of the last two e-mails to the example of one Robert M. Pirsig, before he becomes incarcerated in the psych ward and has his brain fried after his stint at the University of Chicago, where he succumbs to the endless dialectical chain of arguments. I keep saying I'm talking about the _general_ metaphor of system, and you repeatedly insist I offer an example for the thresher of the _specific_ system of the MoQ. _That's_ why I say you're still talking about something different, but giving me more and more wheat for _my_ thresher. It's like you'll almost talk about the metaphor, like when you talk like, "Yes, yes, obviously I hope not to ponder about the MoQ too often so I can get to the dishes," but then you pop right back down to _your own system_ and obsessively ask for an example to break it. You won't stay a moment at the general level. You say all the obvious stuff _I'm not doubting you can do_, like tell the difference between the MoQ and the world, but then you immediately trot over to your system and say, "See, the whole world fits inside of it." I'm talking about the absurdity of locutions like that, I'm talking about the effects on a person that can have if you _accidentally_ start taking them too seriously. Hey, I'm reading Don Quixote right now, and it's not as if he had a choice in going mad--it just happened one day. I'm saying, stop treating philosophy like a system, just as it may have helped Don Quixote if someone had told him to stop treating books of chivalry like histories. I'm talking about the point in Wittgenstein saying that the point of doing philosophy is knowing when to put it down. I'm hyperbolizing your replies, clearly, but I'm not sure what the trouble is. I've tried to make this very concrete. I tried to give you a specific, fairly realistic example of what might happen when you try telling your partner about the MoQ, and all they want you to do is the dishes. You keep telling me--just as I keep saying to you--that you swim the waters just fine (_no one is calling that into question for the sake of this discussion_), but my _suggestion_ is that the metaphor of system is like tying weights to your ankles--you might not sink, but it's still probably not a good idea to do it, or at least know how to undo them quick (which is what I thought Steve's wise circumlocution showed us how to do). Now, I don't think this will help, nor do I think you really need the "help," you're a fine swimmer, but please don't ask again for an example that breaks the MoQ--you sound little nutty. Matt > 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 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster: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/
