Hi dmb, On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve said to Matt: > .., the preconceptual/conceptual distinction that dmb is trying to use to > push against us itself makes the so-called "out of touch with DQ" problem > impossible or at least merely "secondary." If this problem is (as dmb must be > saying) a problem with our concepts, it is merely a "secondary" problem. > > Matt replied to Steve: > ...even SOM-philosophers are able to have direct experience despite their > inability to conceptualize it. This makes philosophy a kind of therapy, where > one tries and get people to stop fussing with bad philosophical hang-ups. > Ultimately, one might say, it doesn't matter what philosophy one holds in > terms of one's ability to tune into the direct experience of one's life. But > if it _does_ get in the way, well--so says the therapeutic Pirsig--here's a > way of not so getting hung up. > > dmb says: > Oh, man. I think this line of thinking really shows that you're both > misreading the central concepts as well as the main point and purpose of the > MOQ. I mean, the over-arching theme is that, "our current modes of > rationality are not moving society forward into a better world. They are > taking it further and further from that better world," because, Pirisg says, > "the whole structure of reason, handed down to us from ancient times, is no > longer adequate. It begins to be seen for what it really is...emotionally > hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty." He says this problem > "can't be solved by rational means because the rationality itself is the > source of the problem". That's the problem you just denied. And you reject > the solution to the problem you don't recognize as legitimate.
Steve: I did no such thing. I don't deny Pirsig's claim that "our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world. They are taking it further and further from that better world." (Unless you see that "better world" we are getting further from as primary reality rather than a particular utopian vision.) Matt and I are talking about philosophy in terms of making the world better. What I am trying to distinguish is the real problem of making the world better from the fake problem of being out of touch with reality. You seem to see the way to make the world better as to get in touch with it while I see us as always already in touch with reality. If experience is reality, how can the problem be that we aren't in proper relation to it? It is people's concepts rather than their intimacy with reality that can be improved through a root expansion of rationality, and reality can be improved by improving our concepts. (Mostly improvement of the world comes through taking one another's needs in better account, but better concepts can help us do that.) (Note also that "current" in that quote from ZAMM means the what-so-funny-about-peace-love-and-understanding days of the early to mid-seventies.) 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
