Thanks Bo for your comments on my posts.
Commenting on my wish that Pirsig not position SOM as an evil
metaphysics, Bo countered:
<<<<<
Nothing less than a full scale attack would have done for Pirsig in his
opening move. No break-out from the SOM is possible unless the
metaphysical ground is shifted. Look to Struan's post in the MD where he
says that a value-centered position is forwarded by many prominent
thinkers. He is right. Remember the "value project" by the
anthropologist Kluckhohn and Pirsig's words ...." with such a lead
balloon for a vehicle there was no way he could succeed....". No, if the
MOQ is drawn into the SOM premises it does not stand a chance. We must
harp upon the initial fundamental shift relentlessly.
>>>>>>
Or alternatively we could try to work within the system to make society
value subjectivity in situations where objectivity is no use. In SOM
substance is reality, first class, and subjectivity is reality, maybe
third or fourth class. I'd be satisfied, especially in academia where
young minds are being shaped, to have subjectivity promoted to second
class (to ask for more might be asking too much, practically speaking).
Maybe you don't see this happening without a revolutionary paradigm
shift. But even if a revolution of sorts is necessary, perhaps it need
not be as dramatic as the one suggested in Lila.
And yes, I see the advantages of a frontal assault and I'm sure it has
the desired effect on some readers and at least it gets your attention.
As for positing SOM as a "monolithic beast", Matthew says, "This, of
course, is a rhetorical technique that he uses quite effectively, and I
wouldn't criticize him too harshly for it." But for me it kind of
backfired and I feel warranted to criticize on behalf of those who feel
as I do. There are patches in the book where he loses me as a reader,
and these usually coincide with "over the top" attacks on SOM or
misrepresentations of it.
For example, in chapter 8, Pirsig claims zoologists say there is
something wrong with the duck-billed platypus for not fitting neatly
into their system for classifying animals, instead of admitting that
their classification system is at fault. This is a ridiculous charge. No
zoologist ever said the platypus' suckling and birthing mechanisms were
"illegal". They certainly say the platypus is odd and marvelous, and it
is! The platypus now becomes the object of new, exciting research in
zoology. What zoologists didn't do was sweep the platypus under the rug.
On the contrary, zoologists created a place for it in the system as best
they could, short of revamping the whole thing (which they couldn't
figure out how to do). And placing them in an 'order' is a pretty lofty
place to be. It might be a patch until something better comes along, or
it might be the best we can do. There is no sin in that, but the tenor
of Pirsig's rhetoric has framed it as such. I would forgive a writer for
this if he did not understand the scientific tradition, but Pirsig is
classically trained (in chemistry), and knows (or should know) better.
If Pirsig does enough of this he runs the risk of undermining the
reader's trust in general, causing the reader to second guess other
things he has to say. Unfortunately this might include his MOQ ideas.
Just as bad, a reader might think Pirsig is so insecure about how his
MOQ will be received that he feels compelled to hedge his bets and paint
the competition in the worst possible light.
Regards,
Glennn
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST