Hi Sam,
I like Pirsig actually. You seem smart, know
Wittgenstein, so I wanted to elicit your views. I've
tried very hard to understand Pirsig, and I think I
do. I've withstood the attacks of the friendly ogres
of this list without fleeing and have a better
knowledge of Pirsig because of it. I often say things
that I don't believe per se, they're feelings to tease
out the subject. If I'm being disingenuous with you,
forgive me my trespass in trying to pry knowledge from
you. I also make "emotional statements" which I
explain below.
I don't know Baker, Hacker or Fergus Kerr but I have
read David Pears [UCLA] and my close friend was his
best student for a while. You and I agree on being
able to reconcile the 2 Wittgensteins. I'll check
those guys or gals out.
What is shocking to me about Wittgenstein was how
shocking he was when he came along. I did have a
mystical experience when I read "Tractatus" so it
means more to me than the words or the labels it has
on it (depth grammar etc.). Wittgenstein is Emotional
Knowledge to me and so is Pirsig. What is or was ZAMM
for some people was probably the same for me with the
"Tractatus." I could compare it to the movie "Eyes
Wide Shut." To me that movie is mystical. What is
unsaid is more powerful than what is expressed. A lot
of people did not like that movie BUT it is I guess
it's "depth grammar" that is simply phenomenal. So I
do draw parallels between "Tractatus" and "ZAMM" in
terms of their "emotional" evocation. I guess most
people have not had a mystical experience with "TLP"
(Tractatus Logic-philosophicus) but I have and the
content of those 2 experiences (ZAMM and TLP) seem to
be "identical." Maybe I need a new grammar: I could
mark it as EQ for an emotional quality statement and
IQ for an intellectual quality statement. I suppose EQ
might actually be DQ but I don't want to speak for
Pirsig.
This leads me to my fundamental insight from
Wittgenstein: the show/say distinction. This
distinction is just a categorization of experience
distinction. You can use language to "say" things,
which is in the realm of logic. Simple statements,
"the balloon is red" is a "say" statement. But there
is a "show" element as well. When someone says "the
balloon is red" they "show" things as well. How they
say it, tone of voice, body language, etc. add a
"show" meaning to that simple statement. The key is
these 2 meanings happen simultaneously or in
"parallel" as Pirsig uses the term. So, when I read
"TLP" there was a "say" element about formal language
and a picture theory etc. You accurately talk about
that. BUT at the same time his work has a "show"
element that is unspeakable. It is aesthetic like
ZAMM. It is not the 60s pop aesthetic of Pirsig,
rather Wittgenstein's TLP had a minimalist Zen
Buddhist sort of aesthetic ([EQ] thus my note that he
is "tracing the Eastern tradition in the West".
Because this is EQ I can say that without "proof" of
his interaction with an actual someone).
Normally, the "show/say" works from the "say" to the
"show". You say something and it has an extra show
layer to it. It's like your words are a tv, you and
your listener are watching what you say to see what it
shows. You can also go from the "show" to the "say". A
good example of this is the movie "Usual Suspects."
Kaiser Shosay, Kevin Spacey's character, is literally
the "king of the show say." He made up the story of
the movie in the office of the detective based on
items that were "shown" to him. The detectives did not
clue in until the end.
That's why I think Wittgenstein and Pirsig are
"identical". At least in the world of the EQ. They
"show" the same way though they don't "say" the same
thing. I hope that makes sense. To me, minute detail
is boring and I think Pirsig believes the same. He
would get rid of the MOQ. Listening to the MOQ too
much gets you stuck (in the ZAMM sense) in the land of
"say." Wittgenstein called "TLP" a ladder that you
throw out when you get to the roof. Like Zen Buddhism
there is no dogma. Pirsig is the same, he wants LILA
to "show" you the connecting link between the show and
say in your self, between the indian and the european,
between freedom and order, between DQ and sq. LILA is
a pointer that is it. MOQ is NOT the heart of Pirsig,
it is the HEART of his "say." But like Wittgenstein,
the "show" is more powerful notion. Thus, I believe 2
things in parallel: [IQ] MOQ is the heart of Pirsig.
[EQ] MOQ is not the heart of Pirsig. They are mutually
contradictory but both are true. I think
Paraconsistent logic will help get the "fly out of the
bottle" but I have not begun that battle yet.
That is why I think Pirsig needs to attack language.
He needs to offer a better language. Derrida does that
and that is why I think Derrida is important.
Deconstruction is a paradox, destruction and
construction in one word. To me he "shows" well if he
does not "say" well. If we can't speak in paradoxes,
we are not speaking truth. Life is contradiction but
language does not allow for that. And because we watch
our language like tv, language affects how we
experience life. Language helps make us "stuck." I
think Wittgenstein failed as well: he could not
reconcile the two. He was too passionate, and maybe
Pirsig is as well.
[EQ] With much respect,
[IQ] With much respect,
Angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
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 - 16:01:39 BST