From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 23 2002 - 05:30:10 GMT
DMB, (a special part at the end is directed towards Rudy, Mari, Harry L.
Stille, Paul Goddard, John Williams, and everybody else who's questioned
the practical utility of the MoQ and this site),
DMB said:
I think it is unhelpful to say the Platonic traditon includes everybody. And
I definately think you misidentified the "culprit". Wouldn't the culprit be
SOM or whatever brought us to it? (I assume we're talking about the "culprit
" as PIrsig sees it.)
Matt:
I also think its pretty unhelpful to include everybody in the Platonic
tradition, which is why not everybody fits. As I described it, people who
desire a solidarity relation to truth are not in the Platonic tradition,
which itself desires an objectivity relation to truth. That's why I didn't
name Protagoras, Hume, or Rorty in my sweeping gesture of who's in the
Platonic tradition. Nor Gorgias, Nietzsche, Hegel (early), Heidegger
(early), Wittgenstein (late), Dewey (on his good days), Foucault, or
Derrida. And Pirsig, in his early, ZMM phase, wouldn't be included as a
Platonic philosopher, though late, post-Lila Pirsig would be.
People who've read many of my posts in the last five months (Platt, Scott,
Sam, others) will know that when the appearance/reality distinction comes
up, I'm talking about a Rortyan reading of philosophy. So I can't really
take credit for, as you might call, my "mishandled" knife. As I've gone on
at length before about this, I'll only mention that, as I interpret it,
Pirsig's SOM represents the Platonic tradition of metaphysics (Rorty), that
whole nest and brood of dualisms (Dewey), the metaphysics of presence
(Derrida), logocentrism (Derrida), the onto-theological tradition
(Heidegger), and many others. The lynch-pin of all of these varying
labels, orginating for all practical purposes in Plato, is the distinction
between appearance and reality. I talk at length about this in the
"Pirsig, the MoQ, and SOM" thread (started in mid-October).
So, the culprit in both of our interpretations is going to be SOM. How we
interpret SOM is going to be different. I find Pirsig supporting both
sentiments, the SOM-as-metaphysics-of-substance/materialism (your standard
interpretation) and SOM-as-appearance/reality-distinction (my Rortyan
interpretation).
DMB said:
Society's ills? If only we had more money and love? Don't think SOM is the
problem? What I'm trying to get at by going back to the Sophists is to show
what was lost so long ago. SOM represents the culmination of a long trend, a
trend that was increasingly "godless and materialistic" as the
fundamenatlists might put it. Yes, we're talking about a defect in the way
intellect searches for "Truth", but more than that we're talking about the
mystical reality that SOM denies almost entirely. We're talking about the
death of God, the de-sanctification of nature, that terrible secret
loneliness of the twentieth century, we're talking about a spirtual vacuum
that has left Western man trapped alone in his own subjective reality in a
meaningless and hostile universe. We're talking about the human soul and its
alienation from God. The examination of this issue certainly benifits from
doing some intellectual history, but the heart of the issue of a spiritual
crisis. The further back we go, the more apparent this becomes. Socrates is
a champion of the intellect, but let us not project our SOM onto him. For
him the intellect was not just the brain power and an ability to do
philosophy, it was an aspect of the soul, the immortal aspect of the soul.
As I keep promising, I hope to show that the original Platonists were far
more spiritual than is usually supposed.
Matt:
This is exactly what I deny is causing our society's ills. Thank you for
supplying the laundry list. I think money and war are much more
explanatory than intellectual history as to what the problems of society
are. I follow Marx in thinking that the primary motor of history is
economic. SOM does represent a long trend, a trend I think we should break
away from. But I don't think mysticism does break away from it, even if
the original Platonists are far more spiritual than is usually supposed,
which isn't supposed all that often by most learned sources today. I
certainly agree that they are more spiritual and mystical than many of the
positivistic treatments of them show them as. What could be more mystical
then their conception of the road to truth as aletheia or "unveiling,"
which is essentially a revelation.
What I'm opposed to is thinking that the road to solving all our problems
is best served by simply changing our minds, becoming more spiritual, "by
individuals making Quality decisions and that's all." (Ch 29) This is
definitely where Pirsig and I part ways. Until people have enough money, I
don't think there is any chance for them to simply change their minds.
Until people don't have to worry about putting food on the table for their
kids, I don't think they have a chance to be spiritual. Until people have
the time and luxury to spend on reading and relaxing, I don't think a
person in the ghetto has the energy to make Quality decisions. The people
who do have this time and energy is the bourgeoisie, the upper and middle
classes. And the fact that they spend most of their time watching TV or
trying to figure out how to make more money _is_ a problem and might be
attributable to a "spiritual crisis". But to think that the poor have time
to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to even find out that the
world is going into the shitter is putting the cart before the horse. The
poor don't need to be told that the world is going to hell in a handbasket
because their lives are already hell on earth. The poor are already
struggling too hard to put food in the mouths of their childern and trying
to educate themselves and their children so that they might have better
lives to worry about mysticism or Quality. I think the way to correct this
problem is good old-fashioned liberal reformist politics, slowly bringing
into fruition the ideal of a classless, cruelty-free society. As soon as
this project starts to speed up, people will have more time to think about
philosophy, self-perfection, and Quality.
So, to Rudy, Mari, Harry, Paul, John and everybody else who has ever
wondered how to apply the MoQ to practical matters or how the MoQ is going
to help us in everyday life, I have two answers that I've consistently
given: A) the MoQ isn't going to solve the practical problems of the world
such as world hunger and world peace. It isn't going to put the world on
the safe and narrow path of Ultimate Morality. And B) the MoQ, being as it
isn't going to help us if we ever become President of the United States (or
whatever local government you may be near), is best seen as a spiritual
guide. A way of privately attaining self-perfection. As a private
inspiration, Pirsig can be wonderful. As a public instructor, the MoQ can
bring headaches.
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 Dec 23 2002 - 05:24:39 GMT