From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 01:01:15 GMT
Matt said:
In trying to further refine the differences between my interpretation of
Pirsig and others I would like to offer this description of the difference
between Quality in ZMM, on the one hand, and the Metaphysics of Quality in
Lila, on the other.
DMB says:
I think comparing the two books is a good idea. For starters, it seems clear
to me that Pirsig sought to clarify his ideas in Lila. In ZAMM they were
left rather vague. And I have to say that I'm suspicious of those who prefer
ZAMM at the expense of Lila. I mean, there was something special about that
road trip and aesthetically its a yummier book, but as far as ideas go, Lila
only takes a good thing and makes it better, more clear, more useful and
more definite. What's not to love?
Matt said;
I think Bruce Charlton (in his essay, on the website, "A Philosophical
Novel: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance") correctly identifies a
strain of post-metaphysical thinking in ZMM.
DMB says:
Small point. If ZMM preceeds the Metaphysics of Quality, wouldn't that make
it pre-metaphysical? I know, I know. You're saying he rejects metaphysics.
I'd like to seem some evidence of that. Maybe he's just guilty by
association?...
Matt Continued:
................................................I think he's write to put
Pirsig in the pragmatist tradition with James, Dewey, and Rorty. But just
as acute is his observation that, after seeming to eschew metaphysics,
"even Pirsig does not entirely avoid metaphysical thinking. In talking
about Quality, he is almost irresistibly tempted into the business of
defining Quality." I think he's right, the strain to make Quality
metaphysical appears in ZMM, before his follow-through in Lila. However,
because of the appearance of Lila, I think it is easy to still interpret
ZMM as post-metaphysical, while leaving the MoQ in Lila to its own devices.
Charlton interprets ZMM as pragmatic philosophy and I follow him in
thinking that Lila is something completely other than pragmatism. The turn
back towards the metaphysical is the turn away from James.
DMB says:
I'm glad you see the other strain. I think its not so much that he was
tempted into it like some kid in a candy store, although I'd bet that's a
little true too. I think he realized that if his ideas about Quality were to
ever get past some vague notions about beautiful bar-be-ques and Buddha-like
mechanics he'd have to spell it out clearly. Further, Pirsig does not
abandon James or Pragmatism. He goes into some detail as to the differences
between himself and James in chapter 29 of Lila. From the last page of
it....
"The MoOQ is a continuation of the mainstream of 20th century American
philosophy. It is a form of pragmatism, of instrumentalism, which says the
test of the true is the good. It adds that this good is not a social code or
some intellectualized Hegalian absolute. It is direct everyday experience."
Matt said:
I think the difference between Quality and the MoQ can be summed up by
comparing them to Derrida's neologism "logocentrism." Logocentrism is...
DMB says:
The comparison didn't help me compare the two books a bit. Let's move on.
Matt said:
Quality, in both ZMM and Lila, I think, can be saved, though maybe not the
Metaphysics of Quality. The key is to not think of it as metaphysical.
DMB says:
Huh?
When Charlton says, "Pirsig is coming close ... to stating that this
'pre-intellectual awareness' (value) [Quality] is Reality (with a capital
R)," I think his fear is correct if we assume that this is a metaphysical
reality. I think we can call Quality reality in a trivial sense that
simply makes it synonymous with our environment, something pragmatists
don't doubt the existence of. If we make Quality reality in a trivial
sense, that means we _can_ still redescribe material things in terms of
value just as Pirsig does in Lila. But we don't have to. As pragmatists,
we don't want to say that reality, our environment, _really_ is this or
that.
DMB says:
Oh, I see. You want quality to only be our ordinary enviroment because
pragmatists would never make any claims about ultimate reality. This
ultimate reality is the metaphysical reality that we should leave alone.
Again, this is already in the MOQ. The enviroment, as you put it, is static
quality and the ultimate reality is Dynamic Quality, which is left
undefined. No problem. But please be more careful. All this talk about
leaving metaphysics and quality out of the Metaphysics of Quality sounds
absurd and confusing here.
Matt said:
In summary, I think it is best to put metaphysics aside. I think it is
best to leave Quality a metaphor i.e. undefined. However, I also think
that in doing this we can use it to redescribe our environment in
interesting ways, without accidently reifying it.
DMB says:
See? There you go again. We're all here to discuss the MOQ and your
suggestion is that we put metaphysics aside? Can't you see how that looks?
Not too flattering, my friend. Matt, I have news for you. In the MOQ,
Quality is a metaphor and DQ is left undefined. The MOQ does re-describe the
"enviroment", as static patterns of quality. I think its not so much that
your criticism are unfounded, although that's true too, so much as they were
already addressed on the day Lila was ppublished.
Tanks for your thyme,
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 06 2003 - 01:02:53 GMT