Hi Sam and Platt,
On Rorty:
SAM:
I think Matt is correct in saying to Platt: "You interpret Pirsig as a
systematic philosopher, one who indulges in universal truths", or, to put
it in Rorty's terms, as one who seeks Redemptive Truth (extract below).
PLATT:
Agree. But Rorty also seeks Redemptive Truth by affirming his own
version of "the Truth." (See comment below.)
SAM:
Rorty: "Redemptive truth would not consist in theories about how things
interact causally, but instead would fulfill the need that religion and
philosophy have attempted to satisfy. This is the need to fit
everything-every thing, person, event, idea and poem --into a single
context, a context which will somehow reveal itself as natural, destined,
and unique. ..."
PLATT:
An accurate description of Rorty's own theory, his need to put
everything into his postmodern, pragmatic "context."
-----------
Though I haven't read this particular essay, in conjunction with everything
else he's written I don't think we can say Rorty's pragmatism is redemptive
truth. Redemptive truth is something sought by metaphysicians, as opposed
to ironists. Redemptive truth is the single context that metaphysicians
believe in or are looking for. An ironist, on the other hand, actively
attempts to change her context. No context is more real or true than the
next, up to and including any context we would name pragmatism.
What your comment does point out, I think, are two things: 1) Rorty's
reasoning (along with everyone else's) has to be circular and 2) we use
things we read or hear as grist for our own hermeneutical mill.
That Rorty's reasoning has to be circular I've pointed to in my recent
comments about the "redescription wars" in the "Irrationality" thread. We
have no other recourse but to redescribe our interlocutors because both
sides view the other as using faulty reasoning. When attempting to
describe what is so faulty about the reasoning, both sides must find solace
in their own vocabulary, which is what's on the examination block. Hence
the circularity.
These redescription wars are also part and parcel with the second point:
that we use our interlocutors views as grist for our own hermeneutical
mill. The vocabulary that we insist on using, that we redescribe others
into, is our own framework for interpretation. We interpret others as
falling into it. Just as I interpret Pirsig as falling into Rorty's
framework, Bo interpret's Rorty falling into Pirsig's framework. We can
also take the example of Freudian psychoanalysis. Freud interpreted all
neuroses as coming out of sexual repression a.k.a. Oedipal desires. Rorty
adds to this that an ironist not only spends time doing this, but also
spends time being inspired by a text. Being inspired by a text is where
you find a new context, a new vocabulary, that you find works a little
better or adds something to your old hermeneutic.
So, I read Platt as saying two things: Rorty can only defend himself in his
own context and he grinds up everything into this context. The first one
is true, but the second one is only partially true. The evolution of his
thought is an example of his attempts to be a good ironist.
For myself (and probably most everyone else here), it is safe to say that I
found both of Pirsig's books very inspirational. After reading them I had
a new way to interpret things. But I was also inspired by Rorty. Instead
of grinding him up in a MoQian vocabulary, I picked up some (or a lot) of
his vocabulary. My efforts here are to display some of the tools I picked
up from Rorty in the hopes that others will be inspired by him.
On Pirsig:
PLATT:
Haven't read ZMM in a long time but in that book didn't Pirsig make a
universal split he called classic and romantic, a split he specifically
abandoned in Lila for Dynamic and static.?
I've said before that Pirsig displays similar tendencies towards both
universalism and historicisim in both books. I think, however, that
Pirsig's stance towards the classic/romantic split, during ZMM, was less a
metaphysical split and more an ad hoc split, a useful interpretive tool.
During Lila, though, he would probably read it as a metaphysical split.
PLATT:
I look forward to learning whatever you [Sam] glean from a re-reading of ZMM.
But I think many of his positions he took in ZMM he later changed,
rejected and otherwise revised in Lila, the split cited above being the
main one. His more recent views as expressed in Lila and Lila's Child
are more reflective of his current thinking wouldn't you say?
I completely agree that Lila is probably an updated form of his philosophy,
just as the SODV paper is even more updated, and the Lila's Child
annotations are even further updated. But I still don't think that they
were good changes. I think an exercise in contrasting the two books is
useful to chart the course of his thinking and, for those who prefer one
book over the other, seeing which parts in the books support a later or
earlier thinking.
Matt
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:36 BST