Hi Ian, I'm going out of my gourd. I can't believe this is so difficult, and since my suspicion is that, if you did suddenly understand the words spilling from my hands, you'd go, "Oh, yeah Matt. I already think and know that," and since you were the one that took up the conversation in a kind of oppositional manner, I suspect that I need to just let it lie--because it is like you're moving in slow motion to my more and more similar repetitions of the same point.
I'll try lamely once more-- Ian said: (When you say system thinking in philosphy - I suspect you really mean thinking of "philosophy as a system" ? See later.) Matt: Oh my _fucking_ god, are you serious?!? YES! The metaphor of system, the metaphor of system, the metaphor of system. System metaphor, system metaphor, system metaphor. I dare say, you won't find once versions of the phrase "system thinking" in my posts (except once when I was telling someone what I wasn't talking about) which you attribute to me. Perhaps you aren't reading me as carefully as I read other people, particularly with the displays of close reading I've committed the time to producing for your posts, where I've been teasing out the rhetorical situations and connotations of what you write....? Perhaps? Ian said: No, no, no. I'm not "conflating" anything - the very opposite. Matt: Yes, yes, yes--I'm talking (see above) about the metaphor of system, and you kept asking me for a specific example that confutes the Metaphysics of Quality, which is itself but a single instance of the metaphor of system. So how _else_ was I supposed to understand what you were saying while at the same time _assuming_ (perhaps quite wrongly now) that you were saying _anything_ that was relevant to what I was talking about? If I didn't make that assumption of relevance, there would be no conversation. Do you see yet? I will grant to till the cows come home, as we like to say in the Midwest, that this "conflation" I'm pointing out is almost certainly predicated on the seeming confusion drawn around my talking about "the metaphor of system" rather than "any particular system," but I was trying to help you see the distinction by pointing at the weird way you were conducting yourself in the conversation. And by the way, you're "let's try this explanation" choice was _horrible_: that wasn't a clear statement of my view at all, it was one of those places I was trying to punch up how absurd your assertional reactions are to me. Not at all a good place to pick out--in fact, only convenient for someone picking something out that then they can react to out of context. You might say "not out of context," but I was _explicitly_ man-handling _your_ text to help a revelation, not "offering an explanation." Why not try the piece of text I've repeated three times (now a quasi-fourth): ----- You keep asking for one illustration of the interplay, how system is like weights, and all the rest of phrases I keep using to try and articulate my point. So, I'll give it again: "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." Notice: life is the whole, and philosophy and dishes are two particulars within the whole. What I'm asking is that we _not lose sight of the whole_. This is illustrated in the second part where, while focused on the whole, we treat both philosophy as a particular bit we can pick up and put down because we need to do a different particular bit of life (the dishes). System, on other other hand, lends itself to obsession (and becomes a weight) because of the example of Pirsig--because Phaedrus conceives of the world, not just as a mythos, but as a _systematic mythos_ and his ability to fix the world, and his life, becomes his ability to fix conceptually the mythos. Which is why he goes off the deep end (narratively speaking). ----- Try reacting to that. Pick apart what you think I'm trying to say there. That might help this conversation immensely. Ian said: I admit to "systems thinking" and would defend that (as I did to Dave) if I saw any actual objection to it. Matt: I have _no_ idea what you mean by "systems thinking." This is a sudden importation, since you claim that it is different than talking about the "metaphor of system," which is the _only_ thing I've been talking about. But, the simple example-qua-objection to the _metaphor of system_ that I've kept using is the sterling example of our hero, Robert M. Pirsig in Part IV of ZMM. He goes crazy. Because, I claim, of the metaphor of system. You can disagree with my reading of the end of ZMM here, but you haven't even gone close to this, so I have no idea what you think about it. Ian said: That said "the single system" you refer to is the MoQ - the subject of this forum, no ? It's a "systems view" in my use of the term, just because I use the term. What it is, is what it is ... an framework of evolutionary patterns, based on ... etc. But you're not talking about the MoQ anyway. Matt: That's a very convenient rhetorical tactic for you to brush me away, but this thread started with me saying that Steve showed us how to read Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality while warily avoiding the problems of the metaphor of system--his circumlocution that when we see "Metaphysics of Quality" we read "a contingent, finite human being's philosophy." In this sense, how the _hell_ have you been reading me as _objecting_ to any piece of the "Metaphysics of Quality" when I've been only suggesting a translation scheme--only way I can figure is if you had some prior investment in maintaining that the _the Metaphysics of Quality itself_ requires it to be read _as_ a system (whereas there's some evidence, like the quote that Steve offered about it being a rhetorical flourish, to the contrary). But, then, every pass you take over trying to understand what I'm saying muddies the water for me in trying to figure out what _you're_ saying--whether we're on the same page or not, whether we disagree or not, whatever--it's getting harder and harder to tell. Shit, I can hardly recognize myself in your posts (like when I never said variations of "systems thinking," this mysterious importation that you haven't explained, simply used (once?)). Ian said: I am NOT looking at the world through that MoQ lens. Matt: Fine. Then why are you asking for objections to it (let alone from someone who's not objecting to it)? Ian said: It's a tool, a system I "could" jettison at any time ... if it failed to deliver practical value. Matt: Good, good for you. _Like I keep SAYING!_, I'm sure you and most people here won't ever encounter the extreme problems engendered by the metaphor of system, like going crazy like our hero, Pirsig. Or even the not-as-extreme problems of not spending enough time with your family, also like our hero, Pirsig. Ian said: (And no way is it the creation of "one dude" - Pirsig himself acknowledges the evolved ideas - the net result of that evolution to date.) Matt: Yeah, well, A) your being pretty narrow with what I said (who would think I, the historicist who reads intellectual history and gets mocked as a "philosophologist" for it, would disagree with that) and B) you forget Pirsig's occasional moments of flouting megalomania, like when he says things to the effect of, "Phaedrus didn't think anyone had ever said that before." Like "putting Quality at the center" (again, a recalled paraphrase) of his metaphysics--nobody said that? Well, not exactly those words, but what is one supposed to think Dewey meant when he said that reality is an evaluative term, some 40 years before Pirsig was at the U of C? I agree with you, and most of the time Pirsig would seem to, but he does have his moments.... Ian said: I seem to be saying (and Ron), so live it. But you seem to want to break of a piece called philosophy and talk about the pros and cons of treating that as a system, disembodied from life ? Personally, I can't see philosophy as one distinct thing to talk about in any terms, something you can stand outside of - use of a given metaphysical model (tool) yes, but philosophy as a whole ? Can't see it. Matt: Really? Is that what I've been doing? Breaking off a piece called philosophy (yes) and talking about the pros and cons of treating it through the metaphor of system (yes), but disembodied from life (...?)? Really? Is that why I keep talking about that broken off piece's relationship with other broken off pieces, like the dishes? Because I'm ignoring the other hunks of life? I keep talking about Pirsig' _real life_ breakdown because I _just_ want to focus on philosophy disembodied from life? You really think that's a case? Golly, I've been completely misinformed by my own close reading of what I've been writing. Well, it happens. Since, when I keep talking about the _practice_ of philosophy, I keep talking about the _practice_ writing (primarily), since you "can't see philosophy as one distinct thing to talk about in any terms, something you can stand outside of," I'm guessing (to repeat an absurdity I used before to try and wake you up) you see everything as writing? I don't even no what that means, except you think washing the dishes mean writing on them, but I guess.... Ian said: What "view" (non-system-thinking view) of philosophy-in-itself, are you suggesting ? Matt: It's like you're unconsciously avoiding the meaning of my words by eristically swapping different contexts in for the one I'm using, and now making me say things that you know (well, perhaps you don't, since I'm beginning to waver on how well you've ever understood me), things you know I wouldn't stand for. I've been saying things I know you wouldn't stand for (and have explicitly added that to show my understanding of what you really want to say) on purpose to help show up what _I'm_ talking about, as opposed to the shifted context you keep putting all my words. But that ain't working, and now I'm not even sure what it is you "really want to say," so I'm not sure what else to say. What "view of philosophy-in-itself" am I suggesting... That's rich--considering I have spent no end of time (even within this series of posts, when I said that washing the dishes _could_ be a form of philosophy) trying to get people to stop defining "philosophy-in-itself." I am suggesting A) that we get away from the metaphor of system when understanding philosophy. And B) though I haven't suggested a different metaphor (that I remember), the different conception _I prefer_ (letting people, as always, choose there own course) is that of philosophy as a kind of criticism--to have criticism, you need something to criticize, and hence an implict "other" in the conception. Philosophy is one activity, the activity of reflecting on the rest of life, and maybe coming up with better ways to go about these other places in life. That's how, I think, Dewey saw it, too. You say you can't see philosophy as "something you can stand outside of." And yet, you also affirm that philosophy is one part of life. So philosophy is one inescapable part of life, there roughly being two things you can't escape, life (the whole) and philosophy (a clearly very special part)? Unless one conflates "philosophy" with "thinking en general," I don't see how that wouldn't be absurd, or an instance of the effects of the system metaphor. But perhaps you are led to such things via a different, bad (to me) route. But can you at least see how I, who thinks that the system metaphor _totalizes_, would think that philosophy is best thought of as having an implicit "other" it is about (like life as whole or any of its parts), rather than as something you can't "stand outside of"? 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/
