Re: MD Absolute Quality between ZMM and Lila

From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 11 2002 - 22:37:00 GMT

  • Next message: Peterfabriani@aol.com: "Re: MD Absolute Quality between ZMM and Lila"

    Peter,

    It is interesting that you bring up "existence before essence." This is
    primarily an existentialist motif. If we do assume existence before
    essence, then we won't have anything philosophically interesting to say
    about essence. I hold back from saying that "any explanation of what is
    cannot ever, ironically, say much about existence", as you do, because I
    take the point of existentialism to be that we should no longer be
    discussing essence. Your formulation of the existentialist point says that
    if we don't have anything to say about essence, then we don't have anything
    to say about existence. I think this conflates the two terms into a
    relationship that undercuts the reason for even saying "existence before
    essence." This is why it would be ironic to even open your mouth and say
    anything at all. But if we take the point of existentialism to be that we
    can talk all day about existence without ever talking about essence, then
    irony becomes contingent upon our attitude to the things we say about
    existence.

    What my disagreement with you comes down to is your formulation (which you
    may not be that attached to in the first place). The spin you put on it
    makes the existentialist assumption look like an essentialist point i.e.
    the essence of speaking is that we can't ever say anything of essence. In
    other words, you've taken the ironist point, but made it the Truth, an
    essence in itself. As ironists, though, we cannot do this and remain
    faithful ironists. If we did this, we would be taking the ironist stance
    as common sense.

    Now, if your taking a stance reminiscent of many Eastern religions, that
    Reality is an illusion and that saying anything about reality takes us
    further away from it (which it would appear you are saying from your
    statement, "Talking about the MoQ may have the unfortunate result of
    distancing oneself from that which we are talking about, which, after all,
    is Quality."), then you'll find a problem with the MoQ. Pirsig desperately
    wants to reconcile the Eastern tradition on reality with the Western
    tradition on reality. The Eastern tradition, taken seriously, makes it
    hard to take anything going on in reality seriously. Pirsig's not entirely
    comfortable with this as is evident at the end of Ch 12:
            "[O]ne day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was blithely
    expounding on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed the fiftieth
    time and Phaedrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that
    the atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory.
    The professor smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange.
            "Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been
    correct, but for Phaedrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers
    regularly and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of human
    beings that answer is hopelessly inadequate."

    I believe this is one of the principal reasons for Pirsig's writings. He
    likes the Eastern answer on a theoretical level, but in practice it falls a
    little flat. Pirsig wants to reconcile it with the Western achievements of
    technology, the practical improvements the West has made in dealing with
    its environment. This is why Pirsig moves onto a contradiction in terms,
    namely a Metaphysics of Quality. I take the point of the MoQ to be the
    same as existentialism's in this regard: an antiessentialist construction.
    (Taking the MoQ as an antiessentialist construction is a controversial
    stance. Because, once you take it as having an antiessentialist point, you
    absolve yourself of all absolutes. I've taken this up in the past,
    particularly in the Unofficial Rorty Dictionary thread from September and
    October. A good summary of the differences of the two positions might be
    my post Tue Oct 01 2002 - 06:48:41 BST where I summarize the differences
    between my antiessentialist position and the essentialist position, in the
    form of my most outspoken interlocutor, Platt.)

    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 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 11 2002 - 22:43:22 GMT