Erin,
Thanks for your comments. My own comments were restricted to the last
paragraph and all of the hoopla that Pirsig surrounded it with. I just
found it amusing that Phaedrus's 'homerun' could have been found by a mere
reference to the dictionary (although it wouldn't have made nearly as
compelling a novel). In no way did I mean to attack anything more; Only
that last paragraph, which I've always wished Pirsig had omitted.
But since you 'asked'....
ERIN:
> I had the same feeling at first. I first thought how the Indian John
Wooden
> Leg saying "That's a good dog" is using good as an adjective not a noun.
So
> it couldn't be that Indians only used it as a noun. And why would
ignorance of
> "canine classifications" be so interesting was it just they used value
> patterns to classify rather than object pattern? In trying to figure out
the
> significance of "good is a noun" I found this
> PG 466 " For some time now he'd been thinking that if he were looking for
> proof that "substance" is a cultural heritage from Ancient Greece rather
than
> absolute reality he should look at non-Greek derived cultures. If the
reality
> of substance was missing from those cultures that would prove he was
right.
>
> LaVerne's classification seemed to be Animate- Animal(superordinate)- dog
> (basic)-Doberman( subordinate)
> but John Wooden Leg's classification seemed to be based on value good- bad
>
> So I think why he concluded with "good is a noun" is that reality = value
in
> John wooden Leg's classification system shows that "substance" is not
absolute
> reality and that may be hard to see using Laverne's classifcation system.
I've never been a big fan of the John WoodenLeg story or Pirsig's
bizarre interpretation of it. If this is the best "proof" he could find
that non-Greek derivative cultures are missing the concept of substance,
then I would say one should remain cautious about accepting this thesis just
yet. I have no idea what is to be safely deduced from some guy's ignorance
of canine classifications, but I think Pirsig is seeing the world through
Quality-colored glasses in his interpretation.
Two paragraphs after the quote you cite, Pirsig (quite reasonably)
suggests that Wooden Leg probably just didn't understand the question, "He
probably thought she was worried the dog might bite her." This being the
case, it becomes a complete mystery as how Pirsig draws the conclusion that
he does, that conclusion being.... "What was significant, Phaedrus realized,
was that John had distinguished the dog according to its Quality, rather
than according to its substance. That indicated that he considered Quality
more important."
Of course, John did no such thing and his statement indicates no such
thing. He just thought LaVerne was asking about the dog's temperament and
answered accordingly. A similar answer would have come from anyone who had
misapprehended the question in the way he did, whether or not they happened
to be a member of a non-Greek derivative culture.
Pirsig tries to attribute this misapprehension of the meaning of the
question to John's culture: "The whole idea of a dog as a member of a
hierarchical structure of intellectual categories known generically as
'objects' was outside his traditional cultural viewpoint." It is this
attribution from which Pirsig draws his point.
First off, drawing a metaphysical conclusion about an entire culture
from the behavior of one its members on one occasion is, to say the least,
logically undesirable. There are hundreds of explanations as to why he
might have made this particular answer that have nothing to with the fact
that he happened to be Native American (ex. bad hearing, poor command of
English, he might just be a dumb guy...etc). Had LaVerne gone back to the
reservation and asked again, 100 other Indians might have instantly said
"It's a Cockerspaniel." But moreover... is Pirsig, by his interpretation,
seriously suggesting that American Indians don't appreciate the differences
between different breeds, classes, genus and species of animals???
Ridiculous. Traditional American Indian cultures had extensive knowledge of
the similarities and differences between the animals that shared their land.
Whether or not they happened to use the same words to express the
differences is irrelevant. Pirsig's point depends on the notion that
Indians classify the animals on a different basis, not simply in a different
language. The only thing that Pirsig's story proves is that one particular
guy (John Wooden Leg) misunderstood the intention of one particular
question. Any further speculation is just that, speculation.
This interpretation is taken to a sublimely silly height when Pirsig
tries to extrapolate it to give new meaning to the comments made by Indians
after hearing that Phaedrus was good friend of Dusenberry, they say, "He was
a GOOD man." Pirsig quips: "The Indians didn't see man as an object to whom
the adjective 'good' may or may not be applied. When the Indians used it
they meant good is the whole center of experience and that Dusenberry, in
his nature, was an embodiment or incarnation of this center of life." Thus,
if "good" is being used not as a description of Dusenberry, but rather, in
the fashion that Pirsig describes, then the fact that Dusenberry was kind to
Indians and helped them out was irrelevant to the use of the word. Had
Phaedrus shown up and said that he was a good friend of General Custer, the
Indians presumably would have said the same thing, since Custer was, just as
much as Dusenberry, an "embodiment or incarnation of this center of life."
If not, and if the use of the word is dependant on the character of the
person in question, then it's a description... an adjective. If so, and the
character of the person in question is irrelevant to the use of the word,
then 'good' has lost its meaning as it can be equally applied to anyone from
Hitler and Bin Laden to Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
Of course, that's just my understanding. However, by Pirsig's logic, my
own personal understanding is a sufficient basis from which one could deduce
the understanding of my entire culture, so... take it for what it's worth.
He should have ended on 465.
rick
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 - 16:01:43 BST