THIS POSTING IS COMPOSED ENTIRELY BY ME (STRUAN HELLIER), NOT ROGER AND
THEREFORE SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY BE TAKEN AS REFLECTING ROGER'S POINT OF
VIEW OR INDICATING HIS APPROVAL OF THE CONTENT, STYLE OR AUTHOR.
Greetings,
My subscription to the list has not been 'approved' by the moderator,
hence I am posting by proxy. Further participation may well, for this
reason, prove difficult.
---------------------------------------------
Dan was kind enough to send me the latest version of 'Lila's Child' and
I hoped to find some interesting comments from Pirsig. There were, from
my point of view, just two. In the introduction Pirsig describes me as a
person, 'who makes an art form out of the personal insult,' and later on
he finds what he bizarrely thinks is a strong example where I (rightly)
accuse Magnus of making a stupid comment.
PIRSIG:
"To say that a comment is "stupid" is to imply that the person who makes
it is stupid. This is the "ad hominem" argument: meaning, "to the
person." Logically it is irrelevant. If Joe says the sun is shining
and you argue that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid,
what does this tell us about the condition of the sun? That the ad
hominem argument is irrelevant is usually all the logic texts say about
it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make what may be an original
contribution. It says the ad hominem argument is a form of evil. The
MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual," into four parts: inorganic,
biological, social and intellectual. Once this analysis is made, the ad
hominem argument can be defined more clearly: It is an attempt destroy
the intellectual patterns of an individual by attacking his social
status. In other words, a lower form of evolution is being used to
destroy a higher form. That is evil. However the MOQ suggests that this
only an intellectual evil. In politics, for example, to identify your
political opponent as a former Nazi is not evil if he really was a Nazi,
because politics is a dominantly social activity rather than an
intellectual activity."
Showing that Pirsig is a hypocrite is rather too easy. To append a
comment to my words, which states that I have used an 'ad hominem'
attack and that an 'ad hominem' attack is evil, is to imply (by Pirsig's
logic at least) that I am evil, which is an 'ad hominem' attack - albeit
one that I take as a personal compliment. Being evil under the moq
almost has to be good.
No doubt people will consider pointing out this hypocrisy to be a
personal attack in itself and yet the 'ad hominem' attack is a perfectly
valid tool and entirely relevant if one sees a philosophical position as
being informed by the person who holds it. I agree with Fichte.
FICHTE:
"What sort of philosophy one chooses depends, therefore, on what sort of
man one is; for a philosophical system is not a dead piece of furniture
that we can reject or accept as we wish; it is rather a thing animated
by the soul of the person who holds it."
We can see then that for myself, Fichte (though obviously for both, not
in the context of the moq) and, I contend, Pirsig, if you are one sort
of person you will choose the moq and if you are another sort of person
you will be stuck with som. Pirsig's position on this is entirely 'ad
hominem'. Indeed it has to be.
PIRSIG: On Aristotle (ZAMM pg 364)
". . with an asshole statement like that"
'Logically irrelevant' and implying that Aristotle is an asshole.
PIRSIG: (LILA pg 119)
"When Rigel starts all that breakfast oratory about morals he's just
blowing hot air. He doesn't know what he is taking about"
'Logically irrelevant' and flatly claiming that Rigel is ignorant.
PIRSIG: (In his letter to Bodvar posted on the forum)
"(Hellier is) . . . . above all "rational" in the static sense of the
term"
'Logically irrelevant' and a personal insult.
PIRSIG: (Ibid)
"Many people just do not "see" quality at the same time they are
obviously seeing it, in the same way that tin- eared people do not
"hear" harmony at the same time they are obviously hearing it. I think
this was what you were trying to tell Hellier at the end of the Great
Shoot-Out when you told him to learn more about reality."
Hmm. . . . . Oh please let me in to your special secret that only
special people can share! And, can I have an ice cream for being so
good?
I could go on with dozens more examples, but I doubt that anyone without
a vested interest can seriously take issue with my contention that the
ad hominem attack pervades a lot of what Pirsig writes in ZAMM and Lila.
Time and time again we are cajoled into thinking that a perceptual shift
is required and that if you do not agree it is because you are deficient
in some way. Example after example of blind 'SOMites' are wheeled out in
long succession, only to suffer death by misrepresentation (a
particularly infuriating favourite of Pirsig) or attacks on their
ability to perceive reality. That is, after all, what the mythical SOM
was invented for; as a put down to anyone who disagrees with the moq.
Now, lest anyone think I have a problem with ad hominem attacks 'per
se'. I do not. Indeed I agree with Aristotle's suggestion that the ethos
of a speaker plays a crucial role in determining whether an argument is
persuasive or not. Aristotle was a great fan of rhetoric, despite
Pirsig's misleading claims in ZAMM, and rhetoricians have always
understood the value of the ad hominem attack.
I do, however, have a problem with hypocrisy and it is here that I take
issue with Pirsig who manifestly subscribes to indulging in what he
himself depicts as a form of evil. Why would anyone want to accept the
arguments of a man who preaches one thing and yet systematically
indulges in its opposite?
Not a logical argument perhaps, but important to anyone who thinks that
philosophy is a human endeavour and concerned with more than a series of
equations. With just a hint of irony, I can only imagine that Pirsig
wants to remove morality from the process of philosophising.
Perhaps the next person who wants, on this forum, to get uppity about
'ad hominem' attacks should analyse more carefully the precise nature of
the way Pirsig deliberately chose to present his arguments. They may
also do well to ask themselves why Pirsig pretends to respect philosophy
when it suits him, while simultaneously indulging in the worst sort of
new age nonsense when he thinks he can get away with it. Angus calls it
a 'performance art joke', and, 'a post-modern book of revelation'. Well
it certainly reveals nothing of consequence, it is bad art, and it isn't
funny!
That is where the real evil resides and those who propagate it should be
ashamed.
Struan
[As a favor to Struan, I agreed to send this message under my name. I take
full responsibility for the acceptability of the content as per our rules. --
Rog]
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 - 16:02:11 BST