Hi Angus,
Hmmmmm even more. I think we do actually disagree fundamentally about all
sorts of things, not least the best way to resolve disagreements. But that's
half the fun of a forum such as this.
Firstly, about Wittgenstein - I doubt we're going to resolve our differences
there (and this is most certainly not the forum for doing so) but I thought
it might be useful if we compared notes on who amongst the academic
establishment best reflected our views about him. My understanding of
Wittgenstein was set out in my post of Sat Oct 06 2001, and I think the 'big
beasts' whose understanding of Wittgenstein I share are Baker/Hacker (Hacker
taught me
when I was an undergraduate) and also Fergus Kerr. Are there people who I
could investigate whose understanding of Wittgenstein is similar enough to
yours that it would be worthwhile?
On to your comments:
> Well of course they are different, Wittgenstein did
> all the work. Pirsig is going up the mountain with
> oxygen. He's no Sherpa Denzing. I mean, he wrote his
> thing in the 70s.
I am unaware of any evidence showing that Pirsig read Wittgenstein, nor do I
think it particularly likely. Pirsig seems quite scrupulous in referencing
the thinkers that he was working through, and I think if Wittgenstein was
providing him with oxygen, then there would have been some indication that
this was going on (and Pirsig would surely have had to address the wholesale
critique of metaphysics that Wittgenstein makes?) The Investigations was
only published in the early 1950s, and some of the really interesting stuff
(like his Remarks on Frazer) came out after ZAMM was published. So all
things considered I think Pirsig climbs the mountain under his own power.
> Either way, Wittgenstein was hopping
> mines in World War I and already he was tracing the
> Eastern tradition within the Western tradition.
You'll need to explain the last part of that comment. Again, I'm unaware of
Wittgenstein being directly influenced by any Eastern thinker (as opposed
to, say, Spengler or Tolstoy).
> Heck
> we could go back to Schopenhauer. I mean van Gogh and
> Gaugin were incorporating Japanese art into their
> paintings in the late 1880s. Historically, integration
> of East and West of Pirsig is EXTEREMELY late.
A good case can be made for Hegel being one of the principal crossover
figures in the post-medieval era.
> HOWEVER, he probably EXPRESSED it the best. He is a
> rhetorictician [sic], not Derrida.
I don't know what the word "rhetorictician" means. When I called Derrida a
rhetorician I was meaning it in its original (and ZAMM described) sense of
one who teaches rhetoric; or, put differently, that Derrida tells us to look
at the context of the words we use. It was intended to be descriptive, not
pejorative.
> > Wittgenstein is very much a product of turn of
> > the century Vienna, and
> > pessimistic about culture, whereas Pirsig is (a
> > product? a part?) of the
> > 1960's counter-culture, and optimistic.
> Dude, that's like the weakest argument...
> "Wittgenstein is not like Pirsig because he is from
> Vienna." I know you have better thoughts than that.
Which part of the point do you disagree with? That people are influenced by
their cultural background, that one or other of the authors wasn't, that
they didn't share a temperament with that background, or that that contrast
isn't relevant to elucidating their thinking?
> > To my mind Pirsig is original in that he 'shows the
> > fly the way out of the
> > fly-bottle' from within the Western
> > scientific/rational mindset.
> At least for you. That is the trend in the
> justification of Pirsig: "he connected with me."
> That's great: that does not mean it is original.
I think one of the fundamental differences between us can be brought out by
considering a form/content distinction. You seem concerned solely with the
originality of intellectual content, whereas my point (here and in my recent
post in this
thread to John B) is that the aesthetic expression of a truth can be more
important than (say) the intellectual content, and that a profound aesthetic
originality - as IMO evidenced by Pirsig in ZAMM - is just as important.
Your comments bring to mind Pirsig's criticisms of the use of the word
'just' to denigrate our pre-intellectual reactions.
> > I don't
> > think that has been done before.
> Emphasis on "don't think." You should "look" instead.
> Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Heidegger.... ok, you're
> not German maybe that is why it didn't connect....
So now you accept that cultural context is important? (BTW are you German? -
you could perhaps comment on that mind/intelligence translation point I
raised if you are.)
Moreover my use of 'I don't think' is a typical English circumspection. You
haven't grasped my point about the fly-bottle (Wittgenstein's image) - I
think Pirsig is using wholly western tools to make his point; he doesn't ask
us to take on an Eastern culture wholesale. Hence "To my mind Pirsig is
original in that he 'shows the fly the way out of the fly-bottle' from
within the Western scientific/rational mindset." Do you agree with that?
> >Certainly
> > Wittgenstein does something
> > similar, but the jump he makes is much larger and at
> > a much higher level of
> > abstraction.
> Agreed. Pirsig expresses it better.
It's good to agree on something!! ;-)
> > They're compatible, but not identical.
> They're identical.
So Pirsig provides an analysis and invitation to the study of depth grammar,
whereas Wittgenstein explores the root of our ecological crisis? I think
not.
> > It's not that one is better than
> > the other; both are
> > needed.
> But who is original? Do you remember Wallace? No. You
> remember Darwin.
But wasn't Wallace actually first? Darwin developed the idea further, but as
I understand it he was provoked into publishing The Origin of Species
because he was tipped off that Wallace was about to publish his thoughts.
> >As for people like Heidegger, to my mind he
> > is still within the SOM
> > mainstream metaphysical tradition,
> As if MOQ is so better? MOQ is just a as much a
> rhetorician's tool.
Is this really your considered perspective? You seem to be rejecting one of
the central planks of Pirsig's case.
> Saying Heidegger is SOM is again
> so weak.
Seemed a concise way of expressing my disagreements with him. But given what
you say above, perhaps that concision is misleading for you.
> You can come up with something better than
> that.
It's good to know that you have confidence in my abilities.
> In some situations SOM is the best option, as
> advocated by Pirsig. So in SOMe situations, Heidegger
> is best by YOUR definition.
Are you thinking of something analagous to the fact that in, say, designing
a bridge, you use Newtonian mechanics and don't get involved in quantum
physics, even if the latter is more 'true' than the former? If so, that's
not what I'm saying. To my mind Heidegger is a metaphysician in the sense
that Wittgenstein criticises, and those two thinkers are incompatible.
You're either with one or with the other.
> >whereas Derrida
> > is a rhetorician.
> I'm surprised you didn't call him a "clown."
That would have been an ad hominem argument, which - whilst sometimes useful
to lighten the tone - wouldn't really help our enquiries here. I explained
earlier what I meant by calling Derrida a rhetorician.
> > I don't think we can
> > separate out the content of
> > what Pirsig says in ZAMM from the way in which he
> > does it, and *that* to my
> > mind is why he counts as a profound thinker, and
> > original.
> Again, a weak agrument.
Again, you have such tremendous confidence in your own judgements. You are
either profoundly wise or still an adolescent ;-)
> You are saying "it is
> unprovable that he is the best so he must be the
> best."
This point is a non sequitur (you do not summarise my view accurately). Have
a look at my recent response to John B which is relevant.
> Join Aquinas in that line of anointing Pirsig
> king.
????? The mind boggles.
> Can you say "fig boy" sycophant?
I can say the words but until I know their use I can't fathom their meaning.
And to be a sycophant, surely Pirsig himself should be the intended
audience, rather than you (and the other listeners in on this thread)?
> >I just find ZAMM
> > tremendously satisfying, at every level.
> That is fine, it does not mean he is ORIGINAL. I find
> Tori Amos' version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
> satisfying, did she write the song?
See earlier, about form/content, and again my post to John B.
> > His language and mode of expression are original
> > (and therefore able to be
> > dynamically assimilated),
> You have had exactly ZERO statements supporting this
> statement OTHER than it FEELS good.
Which IS a large part of the point. What sort of support are you seeking - a
literary review comparing Phaedrus to, eg, Holden Caulfield? Or are you
still hung up on the sufficiency of intellectual content?
> God help us all if
> that is the criteria for TRUTH. That is why Pirsig
> wrote LILA: it feels good is no justification.
On the contrary, my understanding of ZAMM and Lila is that - at least in
part - something feeling good is to be recognised, accepted and rejoiced in.
Pirsig is saying that we are fundamentally built to respond to Quality, and
that much more than our intellect is involved in responding to it. You don't
seem to agree with that. Moreover, it would seem that there isn't much about
Pirsig's perspective that you either agree with or respect. Which is fine,
and indeed if this forum did simply become a shrine of Pirsig-worship we
would all be the poorer, but you seem to be taking it to an extreme. Is that
your conscious intention? (if so, you might want to spell it out so that we
can assess your perspective on its merits).
Sam
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 - 16:01:38 BST