From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 15:00:08 BST
Hi John B:
To Sriram:
> JOHN B: "our own incorrigible final vocabularies have closed our minds in
> advance to information and ideas that offend our value systems. The MOQ
> does not offer much help here. Pirsig pursues his own demons, be they the
> issue of insanity or the death of his son Chris, through his books, and all
> too often we sense that incorrigibility behind the 'rational' facade."
>
> then it is a very relevant point to what extent Pirsig's arguments are
> influenced by his private demons, and I offer one example of where I
> believe this is evident.
>
> You say "Pirsig's social status is being attacked by calling him insane and
> chasing demons of his past, in order to deny the truth of the intellectual
> ideas." Nonsense. Pirsig goes on at length about his insanity, and in the
> postscript to ZMM about Chris's death and its effect on him. This is not
> only in the public domain, but the issue of insanity occupies a large
> portion of both books. If Pirsig can talk about it, why can't I?
If you look up the meaning of ad hominem you'll find something along
the lines of the following, from "Introduction to Logic" by Irving M. Copi:
"It (an ad hominem attack) is committed when instead of trying to
disprove the truth of what is asserted one attacks the man who made
the assertion. The personal character of a man is logically irrelevant to
the truth or falsehood of what he says, or the correctness or
incorrectness of his argument. The way in which this irrelevant argument
may sometimes persuade is through the psychological process of
transference. Where an attitude of disapproval towards a person can be
evoked it may possibly tend to overflow the strictly emotional field and
become disagreement with what that person says. But this connection
is only psychological, not logical. Even the most wicked of men may
tells the truth or argue correctly."
In other words, Pirsig's bout with insanity and anger at the loss of his
son is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the arguments he presents in
Lila, Chap. 24 (or any other chapter for that matter).
Another example of an ad hominem attack you appear to have borrowed
with enthusiasm from Rorty is this business about "incorrigible final
vocabularies" which you identify rightly as "prejudice." To lay that
charge on Pirsig or anyone else is also an irrelevant ad hominem abuse.
Oh yes, I know. For Rorty and other postmodernists, rationality is
suspect and logic with its attendant fallacies is hopelessly out of date.
Thus, to assail a man's background, intelligence, character or
prejudices is not only permitted, but encouraged because the true
measure of a man's thinking is not his rationality but his sensitivity to
the needs of others, so that emphasis on "feeling your pain" rather than
adherence to logic is considered enlightened. As a result, we see the
scourge of "political correctness," i.e., censorship of free speech,
rampant among certain intelligentsia.
You can disagree with Pirsig on social issues without resorting to the
game of armchair psychoanalysis. My hope is that you'll forego hunting
for ulterior motives and present a more credible case against his
conclusions.
Platt
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:58 GMT