From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Oct 30 2004 - 22:14:53 BST
Sam asked:
Is 'subject-object metaphysics' just another word for Cartesianism? If not,
is there another description of it that might be recognised by the academic
community?
"From the first google website enquiry on Cartesianism: "The central idea of
Cartesianism is that the mind is separate from the body and that the mind
can be better and more fully understood than the body. One's essential
identity is one's mind and the interior processes of the mind have more
reality than the physical processes of the body. It follows from this that
what you think (subjectivity) is more important than anything outside you in
the physical world (objectivity); from this would be developed the
Enlightenment concept of the subject."
Matt answered:
.. I would want to take "modern philosophy" to mean the desire to do
epistemology, the thought that the skeptic needs to be answered rather than
bypassed. I would want to take "Cartesianism" in the wide sense to be
synonymous with modern philosophy, or in a restricted sense to be some form
of the thesis that certainty proceeds from the mind (this would extend
"rationalism" to include Descartes to Kant to Chomsky). In these general
terms, SOM in the wide, Greek-as-target sense is synonymous with modern
philosophy, though I think its ambiguous as to whether Pirsig is modern or
post-modern then (I think there is evidence for both). On the other hand,
SOM in its more restricted, logical-positivist-as-target sense is not
synonymous with the specific sense of Cartesianism because the logical
positivist (and therefore SOM) is already post-Cartesian (though I wouldn't
be surprised if there remained a few Cartesian remenants in Pirsig).
Rick Valence said:
I agree with Matt that the jury is still out on whether Pirsig is modern or
post-modern and I think that alternative interpretations of SOM must arise
depending on which category one places Pirsig in. If Pirsig is seen as
post-modern, then SOM is easily identified with the tradition(s) of
Modernism (and with Cartesianism to the extent that that term is synonymous
with Modernism). But if Pirsig himself is a part of the Modern tradition,
then SOM must be restricted, in one way or another, to some subset of the
modern tradition (possibly this one that "proceeds from the mind" as Matt
says).
dmb says:
I don't mean to equivocate when I say that Pirsig is Modern AND Postmodern,
its that I think it must be so for any postmodern view. In fact, Pirsig's
inclusion of the perennial philosophy means that he has also included the
wisdom of the PREmodern social level too. And of course this is only
consistent with the MOQ's overall structure, where each level depends on the
previous one. In other words, its only right and proper that certain
elements of the previous worldviews, its wisdom and accomplishments, will be
retained even as we are also working hard to jettison the obsolete and
negative aspects of those same worldviews. Perhaps you recall the Ken Wilber
quote pointing out that "...today's 'modern world' actually consist of
several different currents, some of which are 'modern' in the specific sense
(those events set into motion with the Western Enlightenment, as listed
above), others of which are carry-overs from the premoden world (in
particular, remnants of mythic religion and, more rarely, remnanats of
tribal magic), and still others of which are postmodern. In short, today's
'modern world' actually consist of various premodern, modern, and postmoden
currents." The wisdom of the social level is retained in the perennial
philosophy and we also see a broader version of this respect in Pirsi'g
advice to re-examine social values. We can see the best of Modernity in the
MOQ's defense of rights, democracy, and other fruits of intellect. But we
also see his Postmodernism in his attack on SOM, on the "single truth"
theory of scientific objectivity, in his emphasis on interpretation,
provisionality, and the intellect's dependence on language.
"No epoch is without its geniuses, its wisdom, its enduring truths,
Moreover, to ignore past truths seems to be the very definition of
pathology. Therefore, an integral approach - a sane approach - would surely
attempt to honor, acknowledge, and incorporate these enduring truths in the
ongoing sweep of consciousness evolution. ...From the modern heritage, we
have learned of the need to recognize and honor art, morals, and science and
let each pursue its own truths without violence from the others (a respect
that contributed to the rise of the modern democracies, feminism, ecology,
and the postconventional ideals of libery, freedom and equality). And we
have mentioned the 'bright promise' of constructive postmodernity, which
involved the integration of the best of premodenty (the Great Nest) and
modernity (the differentiation and evolution of the Big Three) resulting in
a more integral approach."
Rick said:
Philosophical conversations are typically framed as arguments and the use of
rhetorical devices is certainly nothing new in argumentation. Pirsig's SOM
is virtually indistinguishable from the Sophist interlocutors of Plato's
Socratic dialogues. Plato's Sophists were caricatures of contemporary
figures making arguments tailored to allow Plato to exhibit his
philosophical ideas (by proxy, through the character of Socrates). SOM is
the interlocutor who supplies the answer Pirsig needs to steer the
conversation towards the issues he wants to talk about (through the
character of Phaedrus).
dmb says:
I think that idea really works, most especially as a literary observation.
Like Plato, Pirsig is up against almost everybody else, up against a whole
cultural background. They're both misfits and all that. But more
specifically, I think that SOM serves to pinpoint the flaws that Pirsig
sees, its his way a characterizing what he sees as a "genetic defect" in our
scientific worldview. I think lots of thinkers have been critical of this
view in their own particular way and there are various schools and trends,
but they all join Pirsig in same finding fault. The various names depend
only on which aspect of the problem is being emphasized. I mean, I think
academia would recognize the concept of SOM, if not the phrase itself. Maybe
this is TOO obvious, but postmodernity is nothing if its not a criticism of
modernity. And it seems that in the broadest sense means acknowledging that
interpretation is an inherent feature of our reality. This is what Pirsig
does when he rejects the single truth and puts value first, when he rejects
scientific objectivity in favor of many truths, when he puts biography at
the center of history and such. I think it only makes sense that he would
characterize "the representational paradigm" in terms of "subjects" and
"objects", but I think there are other good reasons for depicting his enemy
this way. Dualism is his enemy as a mystic, not just as a philosopher. Its
not just about dissolving the mind/body problem. For Pirsig, the whole thing
begins and ends with mysticism. And one of the reasons I like the idea of
SOM as Pirsig's sophists, is because one of the things that motivates both
of them is the (degenerate)desire to assert some ideas about "the One". I
mean, one of the major-league limitations of scientific objectivity is its
inability to deal with the interior dimensions. The gulf between subject and
object created an impossible disconnection from reality, a kind of
ontological lonlinessm, and rendered the world meaningless, hollow and
empty. Not that this is the only problem with, but Pirsig's characterization
basically locates the heart of what needs a fixin'.
From ZAMM, Chapter 10:
"The cause of our current social crises, he would have said, is a genetic
defect within the nature of reason itself. And until this genetic defect is
cleared, the crises will continue. Our current modes of rationality are not
moving society forward into a better world. They are taking it further and
further from that better world. Since the Renaissance these modes have
worked. As long as the need for food, clothing and shelter is dominant they
will continue to work. But now that for huge masses of people these needs no
longer overwhelm everything else, the whole structure of reason, handed down
to us from ancient times, is no longer adequate. It begins to be seen for
what it really is... emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and
spiritually empty. That, today, is where it is at, and will continue to be
at for a long time to come."
Rick said:
.................................I don't believe anyone was ever meant to
agree with the Sophists who appeared in the dialogues, and I don't think
anyone was ever meant to agree with SOM. On the contrary, I think people
were meant to disagree with them. Painting clear and flattering pictures of
all of the particular philosophies and philosophers grouped under the banner
of SOM is no more Pirsig's task than painting clear and flattering pictures
of the Sophists was Plato's. ....But to answer Sam's actual question about
whether there is a description of SOM that might be recognized by the
academic community I would think that Glenn is still right in saying that
there probably isn't. Pirsig's thoughts on the SOM are often hard to
separate from his criticisms of professional academia. He sees SOM as being
deeply ingrained into the academic community and so I'm inclined to think
that we're no more likely to get academia to accept the hodgepodge that is
SOM (under any name) than we are to get Gorgias to accept Plato's hodgepodge
of the Sophists.
dmb says:
Deeply ingrained. Right. That's what I meant when I started out saying that
both Plato and Pirsig were misfits going up against a whole culture. And I
suppose its true that very few of their targets would agree with such a
characterization nor admit to holding such views. But I think both of them
were trying to get people to see one of those things that's so omnipresent
that its invisible. You don't notice it because it is everywhere and no one
has ever seen the world without it. Most of the ideas that we'd group into
postmodernism, in fact, only continue and extend the problems that Pirsig
emphasizes most. The meaninglessness and spiritual emptiness of SOM is only
magnified by the more extreme versions. It takes the valuable insight that
interpretation is part and parcel of reality and turns the volume up to the
points where there is nothing BUT interpretation. Science and religion are
made equal by the assertion that they're both arbitrary, or they're both
power grabs, or that they're both useful. It makes them equal by shooting
them both in the head. Pirsig's assertion that there are "many truths" does
not go so far as to say all truths are equal. He does eject the standards of
empirical evidence when he ejects objectivity, just as he does not eject the
wisdom and mysticism of the world's great religions when he ejects the
clap-trap and low-grade yelping about god. Instead, we see this attempt to
salvage what's still good about obsolete forms and turn it all into
something newere and better. That's what Plato was up to as well. He was
trying seperate Socrates, the good sophists, from the ones who didn't really
know what they were talking about. He was trying to cut through a forest of
isms to find some unity behind it all. And I suppose Pirsig differs from
most other postmodern thinkers because of this profoundly different starting
point. His formulation of modern philosophy in terms of subjects and objects
not only give his a sufficiently broad target, it also allows him to include
mysticism as a valid empirical experience. He's trying to nail down the
"One", just like Plato.
"Plato is the eternal Buddha-seeker who appears again and again in each
generaton, moving onward and upward toward the 'one'. ...Phaedrus was
clearly a Platonist by temperment and when the classes shifted to Plato he
was greatly relieved. His Quality and Plato's good were so similar that if
it hadn't been for some notes Phaedrus left I might have thought they were
identical." ZAMM p.331-2
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 30 2004 - 23:31:50 BST