David Harding said to dmb:
... Did James ever *specifically* say that he thought the problem was one of
metaphysics? No. Did James ever *specifically* say that the world is best seen
when one places quality first metaphysically and everything else second? No.
See how I've highlighted the word specifically? James's problem wasn't one of
understanding the problem. He understood the problem. It was one of how he
went about articulating his understanding of the problem and his solution to
it. James gets caught out articulating his solution to the problem because he
fails to tackle the problem in the fundamental way Pirsig does. Pirsig
realised the source of the problem extends all the way back to ancient greek
times and that many of our modern day philosophical problems can be traced back
to this time when truth was placed before what was good. He thus realised that
the problem was a metaphysical one and that thus a new metaphysics is what is
required because it doesn't logically follow that the best way to break up
what's true is the same as the best way to break up what's good. He gave these
*two metaphysics* two different names to highlight their fundamental
difference. Again, no other philosopher that you mention below has done this..
dmb says:
So now you are objecting because James doesn't articulate the problem and
solution in the same specific terms? Well, even if that were true, it would
still be a very silly and trivial reason to reject anything. But it's not even
true, David. Pirsig himself tells us that William James rejects SOM and instead
puts forth a metaphysic of Pure Experience and the term "Pure Experience" is
what Pirsig calls DQ. What purpose does it serve to be so inflexible with
respect to names and labels? What purpose would it serve to be so unimaginative
with respect to ideas? With all due respect, your objections are baseless and
petty. Since you continue to demand what was contained in the textual evidence
I already presented, I can only conclude that you're just not understanding the
facts of the matter. And so I don't have the gumption to try any further.
"Metaphysics has usually followed a very primitive kind of quest. You know how
men have always hankered after unlawful magic, and you know what a great part
in magic words have always played. If you have his name, or the formula of
incantation that binds him, you can control the spirit, genie, afrite, or
whatever the power may be. Solomon knew the names of all the spirits, and
having their names, he held them subject to his will. So the universe has
always appeared to the natural mind as a kind of enigma, of which the key must
be sought in the shape of some illuminating or power-bringing word or name.
That word names the universe’s principle, and to possess it is after a fashion
to possess the universe itself. ‘God’, ‘Matter’, ‘Reason’, ‘the Absolute’,
‘Energy’, are so many solving names. You can rest when you have them. You are
at the end of your metaphysical quest.
But if you follow the pragmatic method, you cannot look on any such word as
closing your quest. You must bring out of each word its practical cash-value,
set it at work within the stream of your experience. It appears less as a
solution, then, than as a program for more work, and more particularly as an
indication of the ways in which existing realities may be changed.
Theories thus become instruments, not answers to enigmas, in which we can rest.
We don’t lie back upon them, we move forward, and, on occasion, make nature
over again by their aid. Pragmatism unstiffens all our theories, limbers them
up and sets each one at work." -- William James, Pragmatism
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
