From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Thu May 12 2005 - 16:53:17 BST
Rick and all focusers:
Valence said: ............................This is not to suggest that the
narrator's pragmatism and Phaedrus's metaphysics can be reconciled, rather,
it's to suggest that both carry on, in tension with each other, within the
reawakened Phaedrus. This may be evidenced by the fact that the same
tension carries on, as Matt has continuously pointed out, within the pages
of his next book. No longer half-pragmatist zombie and half-metaphysician
ghost, he's reintegrated, having regained possession of all of his faculties
and thoughts... even the thoughts that conflict with other thoughts.
Reading it this way, we may view the MoQ as the reawakened Phaedrus trying
to design a metaphysics that can comfortably accommodate his pragmatic
instincts as well (whether this attempt was a success is, I suppose, up to
each of us to decide for ourselves). This tension might also explain (at
least partially) the variation in the treatment of Socrates; the
metaphysician in Phaedrus wants to lionize Socrates for dying for the truth,
but the pragmatist in Phaedrus wants to remind us that truth is what is good
in the way of our own beliefs.
dmb says:
Yes, he is re-integrated. I think that's right. But I think its a case of
over-interpreting things to contrue this as an integration of pragmatism and
metaphysics. I mean, it strikes me as an imported element that too narrowly
describes what Pirsig is doing and in terms Pirsig that does not employ.
"Plato is the essential Buddha-seeker who appears again and again in each
generation, moving onward and upward toward the 'one'. Aristotle is the
eternal motorcycle mechanic who prefers the 'many'. I myself am pretty much
Aristotelian in this sense, prefering to find the Buddha in the quality of
the facts around me, but 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..." ZAMM
331-2
dmb continues:
Here we can see a tension between two kinds of Buddha-seekers, between the
Platonic Phaedrus and the Aristotelian narrator. And these two are
integrated in LILA by the MOQ inclusion of both DQ and sq, both the "one"
and the "many". To construe this as a tension between pragmatism and
metaphysics is to leave out the mystical, the Buddha-seeking and reduces
Pirsig's distinction to a smaller battle, one he's not even fighting. I
think this is a mis-interpretation that leaves DQ out of the picture and
thereby misses the point.
Rick also said:
The answer I'm getting at is that is that there is no answer. I suggest we
read LILA as a portrait of a philosophically conflicted free-thinker trying
to get his beliefs to hang together. Those of us that want the individual
worth themes of ZMM to carry over will (as Matt might say) cheer on Phaedrus
when talks like a pragmatist and just stare at the ground innocently
whistling when he starts cozying up to Socrates, and we'll just correct the
MoQ accordingly (like your own Eudiamonic project, or Matt's Pragmatic MoQ).
dmb says:
Stare at the ground when he doesn't talk like a Pragmatist? Why would you
wanna do that? And correct the MOQ accordingly? I just don't get that. I
mean, anyone is free to reject philosophical mysticism in favor of a certain
brand of Pragmatism, but what I don't get is the urge to remove the
mysticism from the MOQ and otherwise pretend that pragmatism can't reside
within the MOQ's philosophical mysticism. I think that when Philosophical
mysticism is properly understood and pragmatism is NOT taken to extremes,
the insights of post-modernism fit quite nicely and there is no tension
between them within the MOQ. Like I said, I think the battle between
metaphysics and pragmatism has been imported into these debates and Pirig
simply isn't playing that game.
Rick said to Sam:
Pirsig talks about the relationship of arete with the MoQ starting on page
433 in my edition of LILA (he carries it back to the Sanskrit Rta - 'the
cosmic order of things'). However, even after rereading the material, I'm
not sure I have anything to add to the discussion of individual worth. See
what you think.
dmb says:
Right. I spoke to this issue in yesterday's post. Harmony with the cosmic
order. It seems worth pointing out what Pirsig said, that the idea of a
cosmic order is not new. Its the oldest idea known to man. Once upon a time,
it was best expressed in social level static forms and now we have notions
like E=mc2. Once this order was controlled by the gods, but now it is
expressed in intellectual terms, which are more true so much as more
Dynamic. And its not even the particular forms which are important so much
as the harmony behind them, the Quality that produced them. So it seems to
me that individual human excellence consists not in one's ability to conform
with any particular set of static patterns, any particular tradition,
because they all more or less express that underlying Quality, but rather in
one's ability to see through the forms, to see the point and purpose behind
them. And then to "ride" them.
I often return to the motorcycle analogy when confronted with the critics
who would like to alter or delete parts of the MOQ. (Or, in Matt's case,
most of the parts.) Let me be clear about this. I'm not saying that the MOQ
is perfect, complete and beyond criticism. I'm not trying to protect any
dogmas or doctrines from heresy. I'm just saying that taking the mysticism
out of philosophical mysticism is like taking the motor out of a cycle. Its
fine you you prefer peddle power, but why wreck a perfectly good machine
just because you don't look good in leather? Its ok if Buddhism and
mysticism just ain't you thing, but why try to remove it from the MOQ? Why
stick around only to reject every major plank? Isn't it true that a
pragmatist of this sort is simply at the wrong party? It seems to me that
this urge to alter the MOQ so profoundly is based either based upon a
misinterpretation or its deliberately intended to be offensive, like a black
heckler at a KKK meeting. Either the guy doesn't get what's going on or he's
actively looking for big trouble. Either way, I think its unwise.
But of course the difference is not as stark as that analogy would suggest.
The MOQ accepts the postmodern view that we utterly depend on language for
the ability to think, that truth is provisional, that our beliefs are
context dependent. But it does not go to the extremes. It doesn't limit us
to language, a social level form. It doesn't deny the existence of
intellectual truth or suggests that its merely a matter of arbitrary
convention, it only recognizes the impermanence of truth as a series of
evolutionary steps. And it does NOT insist that usefulness is the measure of
all things. You see, one of the things that prevents the MOQ from asserting
that our linguistic patterns are just a matter of utility and convienience
is the idea of a cosmic order. This puts an entirely different spin on the
nature of these inherited patterns. Rather than being arbitrary and
conventional, these patterns are seen as a reflection of that order. This
idea is especially vivid when we look at mythology because it is so
conspicuously NOT an intellectual invention. In myths we can see how rich
and profound the social level is, the level that has so very much to do with
how and what we think. Myths are like dreams. We don't create them so much
as they create us. And there we find the oldest idea known to man. Pirsig is
expressing it intellectually in his MOQ, but this is really only a
recognition of what we've (humanity)always believed. So when I see
nihilistic postmodern pragmatist trying to remove the parts of the MOQ that
speak to this I just wanna pull my hair out. And that makes me less than an
excellent individual. Sigh.
Thanks,
dmb
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 : Mon May 16 2005 - 04:58:51 BST