Hi Steve, I believe the intent is to create a sense of a continuum in experience. Language may not be the best choice in this since it is a societal attribute, and dismisses the inorganic and biological levels. I looked at this phenomenon through Wittgenstein and realized that the creation of language was more of an end product, than that which supports the intellect. There have been concepts such as Metanarratives that have tried to encompass story telling, but again fall short.
Anytime we create a concept, it must be differentiated from another. In this sense attempts to form holistic continuums are somewhat faulty at the start, even if they are circular. Proposing a fundamental nature of reality distances it from reality, by creating a circle around it. Of course Pirsig realized this and warned to that effect. Any metaphysics will be subject to this, and the point is to create a web of understanding which has meaning to the individual. We can assume that this web is attached to something else, but that is not necessary. There is no reason not to conceive that it exists on its own as a radiant self. If language all the way down provides a basis for understanding, then the best thing to do would be to use it rather than defend it. In themselves, such assumptions can create further projections. Looking for the root of such things will create paradoxes because there is not root. Expression outwards is an easier concept to live by, instead of search inwards. To use the Tao teh Ching: "Thirty spokes together make one hub. Where the nothing is, lies the cart's use". There is an interesting site for the Tao Teh Ching which compares 29 translations: http://wayist.org/ttc%20compared/index.htm If one doesn't work for you, there is always another way to read it. When in doubt consult the I Ching, the answer is always there. It comes from within not from without. Cheers, Mark On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > dmb: > In this case we have one pragmatist who says > [1, Pirsig] the fundamental nature of reality is outside of language > > and another who says > > [2, Rorty] it's language all the way down. > > Steve: > Whether they are both right, or both wrong, or one right and one wrong > is a matter of what they mean by such statements. > > If we view them as positive metaphysical then they amount to saying: > > [1] Language is the sort of thing that has an essential nature that > language seeks to capture but always fails to capture. > > [2] Everything is language. > > Neither philosopher wants to say either of these things. Bit if that > was what they meant they would both be wrong. > > If we view them both as denials of Platonism and correspondence theory > of truth. we have this point of agreement: > > [A] Reality isn't composed in such a way as to enable exhaustively > chopping up reality in sentence-sized chunks. > > They are both right. > > Rorty and psychological nominalism in general also makes (Matt, > correct me if I am wrong) the following stronger claim: > > [B] Language use is a process of relating things to other things, but > language never bottoms out. The things that are being related by > language are bits of language to other bits of language. Rather than > knowledge being a matter of finding the proper correspondences between > sentences and non-language, such linguistic relations go all the way > down. The test of truth for a knowledge claim is then not > correspondence with non-linguistic reality but the consequences of > believing or disbelieving a claim. > > Rorty and Pirsig agree on [A]. Does Pirsig agree with Rorty on [B]? > The only way Pirsig could be right and Rorty wrong is if Pirsig denies > [B]. > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
