Ah, yes. Finally, cerebral tranquility!
Alright, maybe that's a little premature, but I think the issue is resolved for
me.
Maybe not everyone else and I'd still love to hear the debate rage on, but it
seems everyone's pointing at the same thing. And to be honest, yesterday,
before I even redefined the question, I kinda' found the answer I figured would
appear: DQ is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality.
It's what everyone is telling me and, yep, I think you're all right. In
particular, I really like John's response/"argument". Because he's right. And
Pirsig's right. And we probably all know it, but continue to forget it
sometimes:
This is a game.
This discussion, debate, argue and defend, dialectical back and forth is a
game, a game that cannot be won. But it's a game that I like to play from time
to time, a game we must all like to play, else we wouldn't read the posts or
even take any part in moq.org.
More specifically, it's a game I have to play while I toil in the academic
establishment. It's a game we all play when we try and explain to someone
about Pirsig or Quality or the MOQ. It's a game, as Pirsig says, that's a part
of life, just as are eating, pissing, shitting, fucking, getting drunk, picking
up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics. It's a game where the only sure-fire
way to win and lose is not to play it. The people who don't play it say you
win. The people who do say you lose. And right now, the people who do play
the game are grading my essays and giving me my teaching certificate. And I
have to do this for 4 more years.
So, what John did was beautiful (and eloquently put, I might add, a great piece
of rhetoric). He retreated. I say "retreated" because that's what the
game-player in me calls it. It was a retreat to indivdualistic mysticism. And
it's a move that the other half of me (the part that sees the whole picture,
the part that can tell the gamer part to shut the hell up) whole-heartedly
agrees with. Because it's good. Even a retreat needs to be a defensible
retreat and that is exactly what it was. It needs to be defensible because the
gaming parts of us wouldn't have it any other way.
And so, I think that's it for me (besides whatever clarification and wrap-up
stuff that may be needed). I'm going back to lurking. I've found what I
lost. And I'm tired. Every time I do this, every time I enter into the arena
of debate, it takes a little out of me. Every argument I write, I also see a
counter-argument. I try to defend my exposed flank and I expose myself
somewhere else. No argument is perfect, just as there are no perfect chess
openings. After a while I'll come back, rejuvenated and fresh. Usually
sooner,
if I smell weakness.
I do wonder, though, if I'll ever get tired of the game. I can only assume I
will, based on the fact that it tires me so already at the tender age of 21. I
think a lot of it has to do with the struggles that I read in Pirsig. The
greatest metaphysics I have ever seen, and no one that should listen is
listening. If Pirsig couldn't do it, how can I do it. I ain't no Pirsig.
That's ultimately why I left Philosophy as an academic career choice. It's
just a shark orgy of blood. And I have the scent for blood, but not quite the
taste for it that others have. I'll stick to teaching, so I can brain-wash
impressionable little minds. Or, at least brain-wash them not to be
brain-washed by evil brain-washing non-thinking rhetoric that almost got me.
And that leaves me with this:
I think the greatest influence that Pirsig has had on me is as a writer. It's
almost as if Pirsig did write a book teaching Rhetoric. Except there's two of
them. And the second one is even better than the first.
Always in the background,
Matt
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 - 16:01:20 BST