From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed May 18 2005 - 03:17:30 BST
Hey Mark, David (Anthony, Platt)
This turned into a very, very long piece that tries to thread a lot of
pieces together through what looks like a small whole. Or, to put it
another way, in what should be a very specific reply to Mark, I'm going to
talk about a lot of general things about Pirsig and the MD.
People who've read my "Philosophologology," and more especially my two part
post, "Pirsig Institutionalized," will recognize many of the themes in play.
Mark said:
Matt, I don't think your claim is stupid. David might, but it sounds like
you and he have been battling it out for years, so I'll let you work on it
for yourselves.
Matt:
That's certainly true about DMB and I. DMB thinks I've given up on replying
to him (which is half true) and thinks that I just complain about being
criticized. That's no more true than anything I might say or imply about
DMB's comments (or anyone else's) being nothing more than "that's stupid"
comments. Clearly, there's (a lot) more to it on both sides. However, when
I make those kinds of remarks in my re-summations of my interlocuters
arguments against me, I don't think I say them without any evidence. I
glean the spin from the rhetorical mood I usually see these comments and
arguments contextualized in: incredulity. Add in brusqueness-in-reply, and
the effect isn't exactly pleasing to the person you're talking to, which is
"I can't take your arguments seriously." The way many people have conversed
here, I've noticed through time, it is if they are saying, "I can't
_believe_ you would say something like that!" What is usually explicitly
left out is, "How stupid!", but its difficult not to start snaking towards
that next line. Most of the time the person isn't complaining about the
other person's actual intelligence (_most_ of the time), but after a while
such incredulity begins to blur the line, not to mention the difference
between a person and their arguments is already very blurry.
What I would like to do is describe, in what I think are fairly neutral
terms, the disagreement between DMB and I and then situate our recent scrape
in that context. (I say "neutral terms," despite usually being the first
one to point out that "neutral terms" usually aren't to be found, because I
think DMB would agree to this characterization. If he doesn't, and he deems
it an appropriate time to comment and continue our polemical exchanges,
he'll redescribe what he thinks is going on between us. So, this is from my
point of view, but I think DMB'll agree.)
As I've come to understand our exchanges, I think DMB and I have two
different perceptions of the battle between us. I think DMB sees the fight
as being between he and I, with DMB holding a "Pirsig stick" (to reduce all
the various weapons we use down to one) and beating me with it and myself
holding a "Rorty stick" and trying to beat him with that. The way I see the
fight, DMB and I are both holding a single Pirsig stick, one on each side,
and both sides are pointed. In the fight, we try and push the stick into
the other guys belly. The end of the stick that's sticking into my belly is
the "Platonist point" and the end of the stick in DMB's is the "pragmatist
point." (I'm pretty sure DMB would want to redescribe the names of the
points, but I think the names, currently, are irrelevant to the analogy I'm
developing, as we'll see in a moment.)
The kicker of this analogy, and why I think it might be the best way yet to
describe our disagreements, is that there are actually _two_ different
fights going on at pretty much all times. The analogy itself is
two-dimensional, so it only appears that there's _one_ fight going on, just
under two descriptions. What the surface of the analogy hides, but the full
description of the analogy leaves implicit, is that DMB and I are also
fighting over the description of our fight, the perception of what we are
fighting with. DMB and I's fight is both philosophical, which is another
way to say "over the soul of Pirsig," _and_ specifically over the correct
interpretation of the texts. In the first, which is symbolized by our
"fights," DMB thinks I'm a nihilist (which is why he, in his account of the
fight, beats me with the "Pirsig stick," because he thinks Pirsig can keep
nihilism at bay) and I think DMB's a Platonist (which is why, in my account,
I'm sticking him with the "pragmatist point," because I think pragmatism
dissolves Platonism). In the second, which is the struggle over perception
or description, DMB thinks Pirsig's philosophy is a coherent whole (which is
why he, in his account, is holding the only "Pirsig stick," and beating me
with it, and I'm holding a "Rorty stick," because DMB, through my espousal
of Rorty, takes Rorty to be a quintessential nihilist) and I think Pirsig's
philosophy (basically) two incompatible parts (which is why, in my account,
I'm poking him with the "pragmatist point," because when I want to beat back
Platonism I use Pirsig's pragmatist passages, and DMB pokes me with the
"Platonist point," because when he wants to beat back my nihilism, DMB uses
Pirsig's Platonist passages).
One might think, when looking at this description of the battle, that _my_
perception is more faithful to the battle-on-two-fronts that I just
described going on because you can see in my perception a struggle over
Pirsig in addition to sticking each other philosophically, whereas in DMB's
perception there is no fight over Pirsig, just the philosophical beatings.
I, and others who may favor my side, certainly might be tempted to think
this. But that's wrong, I think, because it makes the terms of the fight
obviously mine. As I noted quickly in passing, DMB would balk at my
perception's description of the "points" of the Pirsig stick. From DMB's
point of view, being stuck with the "pragmatist point" of the Pirsig stick
wouldn't hurt (because DMB's already pragmatist enough) and there is no
"Platonist point" that he is using to stick me with. For DMB, if this
generalized reading of the situation is correct, there is no residual
Platonism in such pieces of Pirsig (that he likes and I don't) like the
distinction between social and intellectual levels and the description of
Dynamic Quality as "the ultimate reality." _And_, despite the fact that the
"DMB's perception" leaves out any mention of a struggle over interpreting
Pirsig, DMB obviously does acknowledge that we are both fighting over the
correct interpretation of Pirsig. This is why I think using the full
description of the two different, conflicting perceptions of an analogized
fight between DMB and I may be a description of our conflict that DMB and I
can agree on.
...
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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 - 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 May 18 2005 - 04:33:14 BST