From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 18:43:34 BST
Hello Anthony,
This didn't get through the first time I sent it this weekend, so I chopped
it into two.
Thank you for your comments. Here are some replies.
Anthony said:
I think the “Philosophology” paper is a well written one though it is
essentially misleading and disingenuous. This is because it tends to
replace Pirsig’s real views about the philosophy-philosophology distinction
with a more extreme anti-academic strawman which is easier to knock down.
This strawman is largely created by the selective editing of the Pirsig’s
quotes used throughout this essay to make him appear more extreme.
…
The quotes from Chapter 26 of LILA (where Pirsig introduces the
philosophy-philosophology distinction) suffer especially heavily from this
Stalinist re-editing. I don’t know why you bothered to do this as anyone
referring to LILA while reading your essay (as I did) would quickly see this
re-editing and realise that your portrayal of Pirsig was highly distorted.
Matt:
Well, its tough to respond to this because clearly I don’t think I was doing
any re-editing. I was hoping people would have their book along with them
and would follow along with me as I read the same sections. If there is any
distortion, it is only the little distortion that needs to occur when you
are following the letter of an argument and you notice it going off track
from the consequences of the argument. I did funnel Pirsig into my argument
a little bit, but that’s because I don’t think Pirsig followed the
consequences of his distinction between philosophy and philosophology out
properly. He creates the distinction, argues for it, and uses it. Based on
this certain consequences can be drawn and I don’t think he does so as he
should. It creates a tension in his writing and puts him in an awkward
spot, which is what I tried to make explicit.
Now, the only way to really press your claim that I read Pirsig like a
Stalinist bully is to provide examples and counter-readings. You provide
one, which normally really isn’t enough. But I understand the need for
conciseness, and you can just flex your authority over the reading of Pirsig
to fill in the hole. The problem I see, though, is that your one example
isn’t a very good one. For one, it has very little to do with the focus of
my paper. For two, it doesn’t pan out that I misread or in any other way
distorted what Pirsig said or is trying to say.
You said:
For instance, Pirsig didn’t leave Benares University just because he was
tired of the professor “blithely expounding on the illusory nature of the
world” (as you state in your paper) but rather because of the professor’s
more controversial statement that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki (and the carnage they created) was illusory. The full quote from
ZMM (Chapter 12) reads:
“But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was blithely
expounding on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed the fiftieth
time and Phædrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that
the atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory.
The professor smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange.”
“Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been
correct, but for Phædrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly
and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings that
answer was hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave
up.”
Matt:
Okay, this is exactly what I said in my paper: “Pirsig goes to Benares Hindu
University and just gets up and leaves because he was tired of the
philosophy professor ‘blithely expounding on the illusory nature of the
world.’” The first thing to notice is that I didn’t say Pirsig gets up and
leaves _just_ because he was tired of the professor. My “just” was inserted
to exhibit a sharp disjunction. Not a physical disjunction, as if, after
hearing the answer Pirsig immediately got up and left, but a mental
disjunction, the same kind that occurred to Pirsig while he was sitting
listening to the Chairman talk about the Phaedrus. Pirsig physically may
have been in the room, but he may as well have not been because his mind was
gone someplace else. That’s why we get to the exchange and, immediately
following his short explanation of the inadequacies of the answer, he
leaves.
That line was simply there to sum up succinctly his experience with that
teacher. Apparently you’re taking issue with it, but I can’t see why.
Pirsig’s in the room listening to the Professor. Pirsig is obviously upset
by the material the Professor is lecturing on. The words “blithely
expounding” coupled with “for what seemed the fiftieth time” clearly convey
Pirsig’s displeasure over the lesson, “the illusory nature of the world.”
“Blithely” conveys a light-minded demeanor as if nothing he was saying
really mattered, “expounding” conveys a bit of pretentiousness, and “for
what seemed the fiftieth time” conveys the fact that apparently that lesson
was all the professor, and consequently Eastern philosophy (at this point in
the story), had to offer. Pirsig’s “asks coldly” not only conveys the
inadequacy of what he is hearing, but the severity and reality of what he’s
about to say over and against the “blithely expounded” lesson the Professor
keeps going on about. The Professor “smiles,” again signaling that the
Professor is remaining light-hearted and unserious, and takes Pirsig’s
offered nettle and says essentially, “Yes, the death and destruction and
cruelty and pain and suffering of the nuclear attack on Japan, and war in
general for that matter, are all an illusion.”
Now, your dispute of my reading is that I say that Pirsig left “just because
he was tired of the professor ‘blithely expounding on the illusory nature of
the world,’” (which I have already said is a misleading way of
characterizing what I said) but instead its “because of the professor’s more
controversial statement that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki (and the carnage they created) was illusory.” And you even
helpfully quoted the whole selection. But I don’t see the dispute. Pirsig
was already upset before he got the answer from the Professor. The
“blithely expounded” “illusory nature of the world” is what obviously
prompted Pirsig to ask his question. Pirsig’s question (“was [it] believed
that the atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
illusory?”) was clearly constructed in response to the Professor’s blithe
expositions, and constructed with the purpose of eliciting whether there
really was anything here in India worth waiting for (i.e. hearing more of
the Professor’s lectures) or whether it was a waste of time searching
Eastern philosophy for the answers to his questions (since saying it was
“all illusory” didn’t work for him). Pirsig got his answer and left. Now,
true, the answer is what immediately preceded him leaving, but the prompt
for the question (to which the answer followed) was “the illusory nature of
the world,” not to mention that things being “illusory” was clearly at issue
in the question, and the carnage being “illusory” is, even by your reading,
what sent him on his merry way.
So what did I get wrong? Why couldn’t I sum up the encounter with what I
said instead of the above expanded close reading of the section, neither of
which, as far as I can see, contradict each other, your reading, or Pirsig’s
text?
And if that’s how you dispute the rest of my reading of Pirsig, you have
some more explaining to do.
continued....
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue Apr 12 2005 - 20:14:38 BST