>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>
Rick,
Whether 100 Indians would answer "cockerspaniel" does not matter. He is not
saying Indians think one way and we think another. He is just showing that
making a subject-object classification is not the only kind of classification
somebody can make. Again that "substance" is not absolute reality.
That is a good vs That is a cockerspaniel
Can you see how one judgement has a form or shape, bound in language and S-O
orientation and the other isn't ?
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
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