From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 14:15:42 GMT
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the comments on my essay, which I had a chance to think about whilst on holiday. I'm
strongly minded to rewrite it so that it isn't so 'rough and ready', but I think the following two
things are the essential points that you raise:
1. You said "your basic premise, that 'pure experience' is Kantian by definition, is false." You are
right, and I should have been more careful in how I was framing the issue. In particular, I largely
ignore Eastern philosophical insights and their influence on Pirsig. Now that I have the chance to
put the point more carefully I would phrase it like this:
a. I agree that there is such a thing as 'pure experience', which roughly corresponds to the Zen
'no-mind', and is a precondition for, eg, Kuhn's 'abnormal science'; I also agree that this isn't
*necessarily* Kantian. This is what Pirsig calls DQ (I've sent you off-list a copy of an essay I
wrote some five years ago on the topic - that gives my more 'considered' view);
b. I disagree that this pure experience can be used as the foundation for epistemology or
metaphysics (or mysticism) - this IS the 'Kantian problematic' which I object to - and I think
Pirsig is guilty of using it in this way. Backing that up will take some doing though, which is why
I think the essay needs rewriting.
2. You said, re my argument that Pirsig has inherited a conceptual framework from William James,
"your claim is not consistent with the biographical facts. May I point out that, in LILA, Pirsig
claims to have only seriously read William James (and even then, selectively) after he had
formulated the MOQ?"
a. Influence doesn't have to be conscious to be present, which I think applies in this case because
b. It would seem that the influence can be traced via Northrop. Anthony McWatt (in his 1997 lecture
and his thesis) has done a lot of the groundwork. "Pirsig equates "Quality" with F.S.C. Northrop's
"aesthetic continuum"" he writes, and he then quotes Northrop saying "most of the directly
experienced field is vague and indefinite. Only at what William James termed its center is there
specificity and definiteness." - so clearly Northrop is working with concepts derived from James. I
think it would be useful to spend a bit of time unpicking that, ie the way in which Pirsig has
inherited certain things from Northrop and James, and how far his Eastern influence counteracts it.
But thanks for taking the time to read the essay. I always find your comments lucid and helpful.
Sam
PS to all: I wrote the above whilst on holiday, and I see that I have 219 MoQ e-mails to get
through, some of which are on this topic. I'll catch up as and when I can!!
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 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 15:27:00 GMT