Erin,
A very interesting reading of what I wrote, but let me offer a different one:
I less called the MoQ a religion, then I offered religion as an interesting
analogy, a handy rhetorical flourish, if you will. I tried to draw
attention to the fact that I don't find the category of religion very
interesting as a whole. This means that, while I still use religion to
refer to Catholicism and Mahayana Buddhism, I'd rather not try and use the
category of religion to try and find out who's religious and who's not. I
use it as a sociological term. We've grown accumstomed to differentiating
the Southern Baptists from the ACLU. And if a group of individuals who
have been traditionally labeled a religion (for instance, Buddhists) would
rather I not, then I will not. Rorty calls "forced redescription"
humiliation, and humiliation is something that should be refrained from in
a liberal society and something I try to refrain from in public.
As for this place bothering me, I think of it less like the people bother
me, then some people bother me. I once described (a long time ago) this
forum as "bright as day" in relation to its ability to shed light on
certain subjects and I don't completely back down from that description.
There are a lot of very insightful, edifying minds in this forum that I
should like to tap and peruse. Though I never followed the thread that
elicited the 'differential' v. 'centric' splicing of mysticism, I fail to
see how I or Rorty could fall into the abyss of "one truth that will lead
to nihilism." This reading was probably do more to lack of information
than anything else, so I apologize, if that is so. Rorty's distinction
between metaphysicians and ironists would probably heal any
misunderstandings (I already wrote about that in a reply to John Beasley,
so I'll refrain from writing it again here).
There is one thing you bring up that, and I think you would agree, is a
misconstrual of what is done here at this forum. Anyone who thinks Pirsig
has the authority of God is falling into a death trap. I think we can say
that without much disagreement. So when you say, "I can see why this place
bothers you because it may appears [sic] as a religion that is idolizing
Pirsig....", you're right, that's why I made the analogy of this forum to a
religion: because we idolize Pirsig. The extent to which we idolize Pirsig
differs. "Priests" stand at the front of the sanctuary and lead us in
prayer, while the "heretics" stand in the alcove shouting insults. The
extent to which I've "fallen" is the extent to which I'm making room for
other idols, which everyone is entitled to do. Rorty's "method" of
recontextualization, in fact, is built on the structure of a narrative.
Because of this it must have heroes and villians. One of the heroes in my
narrative is Pirsig and I'm in the process of making Rorty a hero. And
because Pirsig writes in fiction form, it is very easy to find Pirsig's
narrative, complete with heroes (Poincare, James) and villians (Plato, Boas).
Matt
p.s. As I commented before, it seems as though Rorty has given Pirsig the
short shrift. So when Rorty says that he thinks Pirsig and himself are on
different wavelengths, I tend not to take his word for it.
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:29 BST