From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 18:35:17 GMT
Scott R says:
You (Matt and Kevin) are trying to put Pirsig's metaphysics into the
category of metaphysics that Dewey, etc, object to: a system with which
one can grind out answers to all our questions. But Pirsig's metaphysics
doesn't do that (and neither, really, have other systems much), and
doesn't try to. It says that all is Quality, and it is good for us to
remember that. It also appears to say that, when a conflict arises due
to a conflict between levels, go for the upper level. But if you think
about it, this is not some formula with which one can determine one's
proper course of action. Rather, it is a useful framework for thinking
about some (but not all) conflicts. The hippie as one who is confusing
the spontaneous with the biological is one example. Thinking about it in
these terms helps us to expand our horizons a bit so we don't get caught
up in over-simplifications. What it does *not* do is "tell us what to
do".
Kevin:
I very much agree with you (and I think Matt does too as I understand
his position).
I have been very much committed to supporting Matt's pragmatist reading
of Pirsig because when I joined the discussion group a few months ago,
it was completely dominated by those that would interpret the MOQ as a
very set order of fixed Absolutes that absolutely "tell us what to do".
Exactly the kind of animal that you seem to agree it is NOT.
In my efforts to combat the Absolutist or Fundamentalist reading of
Pirsig, I've perhaps mischaracterized myself as somewhat anti-MOQ. I'm
not.
I find Pirsig's jaunt into metaphysics both refreshing, illuminating and
fascinating.
Now that I hear less and less of the Fundamentalist argument around here
(aside from our incorrigible friend Platt and his sometimes
dopple-ganger DMB) perhaps I'll try to focus on more positive
constructionist contributions rather than the somewhat negative
challenges I've been offering to the Fundamentalist viewpoint.
That's not to say I don't value the contributions of Platt or DMB. On
the contrary, their aggressive and consistent defense of their
respective readings has only made me appreciate the MOQ more than I
might have. I've just tried to demonstrate that the idea that Pirsig
openly supports one (and only one) Fundamentalist viewpoint
(conservative, Christian, atheist, nontheist, Classical Liberal,
Marxist, etc) is a product of the reader rather than a goal of the
author, IMO.
I see LILA as an open diary. I glimpse into the very personal journey of
one man. I find it helpful as a guidepost to finding new ways of coping,
but not a map or guidebook and certainly not Scripture.
With good feelings all around,
-Kevin
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 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 18:37:16 GMT