From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 21:01:06 GMT
Matt and all MOQers:
Once again, I've trimmed this post down to what seems at the heart of
things.
Matt said:
I follow Rorty in saying that circumvention and recontextualization
continue the conversation. Here's why: dialectical argumentation (which
you are implicitly favoring) starts from shared premises and aims at
consensus, which, given rigorous argumentation, will always be achieved.
That's the promise of Reason. Okay, so what happens when consensus is
reached? The conversation stops doesn't it. Yes it does.
DMB says:
No it doesn't. You have confused "stop" with "complete". Not that I'm buying
into this dilemma, but if the aim of dialectic is to reach a consensus and
then a consensus is reach, then the aim has been realized and the work is
done. Circumventing the issues, shifting the debate or retreating into one's
own vocabulary would STOP a conversation before anything has been achieved
or resolved. By analogy, a huge wreck would stop the auot race while
reaching the finish line completes the race. The difference couldn't be
bigger.
Matt said:
Naturally, having read the post and at least keeping in mind the other
things I've written in direct correspondence with you, you're perfectly
cognizant of the fact that I disagree with your rant and promote "private
vocabularies and pet projects." Or, maybe not, things I've written people
run together these days. To be explicit: I follow Rorty in thinking that
there is no True Pirsig to be found in his books. Accuracy can be one
goal, but not necessarily the most useful. My interpretation of Pirsig
(which is the only thing anybody can offer) never claimed for accuracy. In
fact, I am always quite up front about the fact that I'm willfully ignoring
certain parts of Pirsig that are in some kind of inconsistency with either
where I would have wanted him to go or with the direction he did go.
DMB says:
Willfully ignoring certain parts? And you believe this is NOT cheating? And
do you move the rook diagonally when playing chess too? Do you ignore
certain parts when repairing your motorcycle? No true Pirsig? No accuracy?
No essence? Where you would have wanted him to go? What are doing? It ain't
philosophy. And remind me not to play chess or take a road trip with you.
;-)
Matt said:
I, or course, deny there is an essence, in any True sense, to the MoQ. We
can characterize it as mysticism, but I think we can characterize it as a
bunch of other things, too (which I've been trying to do). Besides, if you
give the MoQ an essence, you're defining it. That would be a definition of
a definition of "something" undefinable. I suppose you could do that, but
as long as you know what you're doing. I myself see Quality's
undefinability as about a clear a sign for antiessentialism as anything.
DMB says:
The MOQ itself is an intellectual description. Its a static thing and is
therefore entirely within the realm of definition. Within that picture there
is Dynamic Quality, which refers to an undefinable mystery. Further, Pirsig
says that DQ is identified with religious mysticism, that the MOQ is a
re-assertion of the oldest idea know to man, that the structure of the MOQ
first occured to him during a mystical experience and that he'd considered
centering his book on that experience. I think its sage to say the MOQ is
essentially mysticism because it can be backed up in so many ways and in
Pirsig's own words. We neeed too import nothing to see this. All it takes is
an honest effort to understand the author.
Matt said:
Rorty on Bloomian strong misreadings:
"The critic asks neither the author nor the text about their intentions but
simply beats the text into a shape which will serve his own purpose. ... He
does this by imposing a vocabulary ... on the text which may have nothing
to do with any vocabulary used in the text or by its authoer, and seeing
what happens. The model here is not the curious collector of clever
gadgets taking them apart to see what makes them work and carefully
ignoring any extrinsic end they may have, but the psychoanalyst blithely
interpreting a dream or a joke as a symptom of homicidal mania."
DMB says:
Is it appropriate to interpret the MOQ as a dream, a joke, or the symptom of
a homocidal maniac? I don't see how it could be? Perhaps that's why they
call it a "strong misreading"? Sounds like an interesting exercise in
literary ciritcism, but hardly a way to clear things up. Sounds like some
kind of game, not a serious inquiry. Don't get me wrong, I know that such
psychanlytical exercises can shed some serious light. But this idea is
aknowedged in the very biographical and character-filled structure of Lila.
Pirsig even says explicitly that history is biography, that the artists and
revolutionaries are often just sorting out their own problems, but end up
solving everybody's problems along the way. This is why the Brujo's
adventure serves as a central story. This is why Lila's battle is
everybody's battle. See? The truth behind these "misreading" games is
already included in Pirsig's work, but using it to distort or ignore
explicit assertions and logical arguments is missing the point by miles.
Matt said:
Though I do have an interest in pulling Pirsig apart before putting him
back together, I'm also interested in radically interpreting him. As it
happens, Pirsig does the same thing to Plato, the Sophists, Aristotle,
Poincare, Boas, the Victorians, Sidis, James, etc. Harold Bloom says, when
done well, its what the genius does to differentiate himself from the
masses. I'm inclined to agree (not that I'm a genius, far from it).
DMB says:
Outrageous. Circumventing the issues, changing the grounds of the debate,
interpreting philosophy as a dream and a joke. This is what genius does? Oh,
please. The whole thrust of this approach is outrageous. It looks like an
elaborate rationalization to give yourself permission to be irrational, to
compare apples with oranges, to change the subject whenever the challenge
seems too duanting, to ignore the things that are contrary to what you'd
like to believe. I don't mean to pick on you, Matt. In fact, I'm jumping on
your case so hard because I can see that you're smart and well read. I
expect more from guys like you. I realize the tone of this response is not
very sweet, but its about the best I can do. When I see this kind of
equivocation and evasion from a serious student like yourself it pisses me
off to no end.
One doesn't need to be a foundationalist to see the need for a certain
respect for logical consistency, staying on the topic, confronting the
issues at hand and the other "rules" of inquiry. Ignore the rules of the
game if you like, but don't expect anyone to celebrate when you claim
victory.
With respect and steam,
DMB
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 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 21:02:39 GMT