On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> [Marsha] > > I must say it nice to think we agree. > > [Arlo] > We do. And me too. > > What's interesting to note is that there are two key-points in ZMM where > Pirsig references "self-reference" and the subsequent paradox. Consider Lila also: "Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a "Metaphysics of Quality" is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity.” In my recent letter to Pirsig, I suggested that we may need to take an ironic approach toward metaphysics to understand how Pirsig uses the term. In my letter to Pirsig I wrote: "Perhaps the notion of irony can be helpful to wrap our minds around the Metaphysics of Quality being a “contradiction in terms,” provisionally useful, and also something that we should take seriously as literally true. As I understand the MOQ, it is not metaphysics in the traditional sense of discovering the essence of the “way things really are.” The Metaphysics of Quality describes itself as a description, and in the MOQ there is no “way things really are” to precede descriptions. You described anthropology as practiced within a subject-object metaphysics as “Whacko science. They were trying to lift themselves by their bootstraps. You can't have Box "A" contain within itself Box "B," which in turn contains Box "A". That's whacko. Yet here's a "science" which contains "man" which contains "science" which contains "man" which contains "science"-on and on.” Likewise, someone may object that “here’s the MOQ which contains the intellectual level which contains the MOQ.” Do you think some comfort with irony may prevent someone from considering the MOQ “wacko metaphysics” by the same logic? How do you see the MOQ avoiding this conclusion? Perhaps the ironic usage of metaphysics that I am gleaning from parts of your work is more like an eye trying to see itself than it is like a finger pointing to the moon. If we understand metaphysics as like an eye trying to see itself, we recognize that it is impossible for a metaphysics to succeed, but at the same time, a metaphysics that acknowledges this fact has still seen itself better than any that came before which had not recognized this fact. So, ironically, it is still a success." What do you think about the need for an ironic approach to Pirsig's metaohysics? Best, Steve 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/
