From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 20 2003 - 23:24:33 BST
DMB said:
Aligning our thoughts? huh? Since when does comprehension of ideas somehow require that we align ourselves with the author? Where'd you ever get the idea that we have to merge with a writer to understand his books?
Matt:
My use of the phrase "aligning our thoughts" has a lot to do with the phrase "following a line of thought," something I'm beginning to think you have a problem doing.
Comprehension of somebody else's thoughts has to do with following his line of thought, in other words, figure out what his thoughts were, in other words, align your thoughts with his. I don't know, maybe that was hard to figure out.
I'll refrain from commenting on the rest of your comments until later because they completely missed the point because you failed to follow my line of thought. So, I'll go through my line of thought again for people:
"So how do you tell the difference between somebody using a thought system to get "actual" implications and a distorter getting "fake" implications? Check the thought system right, which is, what, the texts? The thought system was created by somebody, right? The texts were written, correct? So, really, checking for actual implications is a matter of aligning your thoughts with the creator's thought system, and the more they match, the closer you are to getting actual implications of the creator's thought system. Right? So, really, its a matter of aligning your thoughts with the creator's thoughts, which are embodied in his thought system, our thoughts with Pirsig's thoughts."
The line of thought up to this point is getting people to understand one way to explain how you follow a person's line of thought. To follow a person's line of thought is to check it against what they've said. "Fake" implications, or distortions, are drawn if, when you check it, you get incoherence.
"So, why should we align our thoughts with Pirsig's?"
This is where I take a turn. I give two options, but careful reading reveals a third, plus I'll comment about a fourth I didn't allude to at all.
"If you say, 'Because Pirsig has had a Dynamic Quality insight,' as far as I can tell, that means Pirsig is a prophet which is like saying, 'Pirsig has seen the Truth, we must follow him.'"
Option 1.
"If you say, 'Because his thought system works better,' then that means its just a mash of our thoughts with other people's thoughts and that the goal is to get better and better thoughts. Right? Isn't that why you like Pirsig so much, because he works better, explains more, etc.?"
Option 2. These two options hinge, not on comprehension, but on having and believing great thoughts. Having great thoughts is the goal of what I've been calling "philosophy," which is opposed to what I've called "biography." If you are doing biography, there is a third option, that of comprehension but not belief. This is alluded to when I say "you'd only care if [you were distorting if] A) you were doing biography."
I expected everyone to agree that the goal of philosophy is not comprehension, but having great thoughts (comprehension goes a long way towards having great thoughts, but that's a side bar). If everyone agrees to this, then people shouldn't have a problem with picking and choosing the best thoughts from whomever they run across, which creates a mish-mash, UNLESS they take somebody to be a prophet, a person they believe to be infallible.
This is why I then said:
"Well, if it is simply a matter of getting better and better thoughts, who the eff cares if you've distorted Pirsig's thoughts? As long as your thoughts are better, who would really care if you dropped Pirsig when he started to hurt more than help?"
Three options. Two are about Pirsig (comprehension or elevation to prophet) and one is about you yourself as a thinker (getting better thoughts). The fourth option is that you don't care to have comprehension or great thoughts, you simply care about defaming the person you are reading, this not being about Pirsig, either. That's what happens to a lot of post-modernists.
Too confusing? Perhaps. But let's continue on to DMB's big gun, about the only point DMB's had and touted that is relevant and on target:
DMB said:
This forum is aimed at exploring Pirsig's MOQ. Being interested in Pirsig's ideas is the whole point. Distortions of and distractions from that aim tend to irritate people. That's why charges of religious zealotry are such a cheap shot. Its not a matter of doctrinal conformity to simply beg for relevance, accuracy, clarity and such. Its just a matter of good form, keeping one's eye on the ball, if you will.
Matt:
It was an extremely cheap shot I took. But I took it to point out the fact that only people who aim for great thoughts AND demand that we stick to a literal interpretation of Pirsig's texts would be irritated by people who are simply exploring Pirsig's thoughts. Pirsig created a lot of tunnels. Not all of us think they lead to gold, we think some of them are dead ends. A Pirsigian zealot is somebody who not only thinks that all of Pirsig's tunnels lead to gold, but think that to criticize and to call one of those tunnels a dead end is not only to be wrong, but is to be blasphemous, a menace to all who would try and be good Pirsigians. That would be the only reason for extreme irritation.
Its okay to think others are wrong. I think most people here are wrong about something. That's what happens when you refine a position down to such a point, wind a philosophical position up tightly. My irritation with people here doesn't stem from a zealotous interest in Rorty, but the defamation that occurs when a person simply mentions his name. I don't think people have to agree with Rorty. That's not why I bring him up. But I would expect people, if they want to criticize his thought, to comprehend a little of what he's saying. My irritation is a direct consequence of the monotonous drone of uncomprehending, dull-witted blasting of Rorty's neo-pragmatism. I say, if you don't like somebody on this site and you don't want to take the time to comprehend him, ignore him. That goes for a contributor "somebody" or a dropped-name "somebody." We are here to either do biography or philosophy with Pirsig.
What irritates me about DMB is not that he thinks I'm wrong in my attempts at doing philosophy with Pirsig or my attempts at doing biography with Pirsig. Its that he gets distracted by Rorty and misses the points about Pirsig. He can't engage with my critique of Pirsig because he refuses to understand what my critique is about. He thinks I'm simply wrong, that I'm interpreting Pirsig wrong. As far as I can tell, DMB hasn't engaged me to tell me why I'm wrong. Much of the time when he says, "No, Matt, you are wrong about Pirsig. Pirsig means this...." I agree with what comes in place of the dots. This is why I think DMB hasn't yet engaged my critique. I agree with the dots, and then I say that's what is wrong. I don't see how this is uncomprehension of Pirsig. But neither do I think any of my critique's of Pirsig suck the soul from him. The reason I think this is because I go to great lengths to supply reinterpretations of what I think Pirsig meant or what the stan
dard interpretation is. After I get done doing biography, and commenting on the biography, I do philosophy so people can see what I think is great about Pirsig.
DMB and I clearly don't agree on what is great about Pirsig. But I don't think this means I don't comprehend Pirsig. Its just that its possible that I also disagree with Pirsig about what is great about Pirsig. I don't think this is a problem when doing philosophy, when exploring a person's thoughts.
I don't know where DMB's irritation comes from. I don't think its zealotry. It can't be that I bring in Rorty, because DMB brings in philosophers of his own, some that don't have obvious connections to Pirsig. DMB thinks that Rorty and Pirsig are playing different games, which I think is true insofar as Pirsig thinks he is playing the game of metaphysics and Rorty thinks he is playing the game of post-metaphysical philosophy. But both are doing philosophy and so I see many more connections then DMB does. Apples and oranges, sure. But I'm looking for the best tasting fruit. So I compare the apples to the oranges to show why I like the apples, but then I attempt to show how (through seeming magic) we can change oranges to apples without much effort.
So, why the irritation? I have no idea.
Matt
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 -
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 Oct 20 2003 - 23:28:54 BST