From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 00:32:25 GMT
DMB,
DMB said:
I just think your project is unworkable because
Rorty himself said that he and Pirsig were incompatable.
Matt:
Oh, I could've answered that a long time ago. People have brought this up
several times over the last 6 months and I've answered them the same way:
Rorty's own project endorses the cooptation of others to weave together
something new. That's the essence of Rorty's cooptation of Bloom's "strong
misreading": "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." ("Textualism and Idealism") Further, Rorty calls the colligation
of hitherto unrelated texts paradigms of imagination. ("Inquiry as
Recontextualization") Rorty does this, Pirsig does this, so I figure, why
not follow their lead and put the two of them together. For a further and
sustained defense of this colligation, I've just finished an essay that I'm
going to submit to Horse for the website within the next couple days (just
putting the finishing touches on my citations).
In fact, I wrote this to Rorty in October:
---------------
Subject: A Humble Reading Suggestion
Dear Prof. Rorty,
I am an undergraduate student who's recently become enraptured by your work
(through no help from the local philosophy department). I'm writing to you
because I would like to recommend a book to you, one which I believe you've
already read. My suggestion of a book you've already read comes out of my
own enthusiasm for the book and my curiosity over what you think about it.
The book in question is "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by
Robert M. Pirsig.
This was the first book that inspired me to do philosophy. It inspired me
to the point that (besides majoring in it in college) I joined an e-mail
discussion list, provided through the website www.moq.org, that talks about
Pirsig's philosophy. In May, a participant on this list, David Thomas,
e-mailed you asking what you thought about Pirsig. You replied to him, "I
thought there were some good lines in 'Zen and...', but I never quite saw
why people liked the book as much as they did. I tried to read 'Lila', but
didn't get very far. I guess Pirsig and I just aren't on the same wavelength."
A few months after this (and fairly unrelated to Thomas' query), I started
a "campaign" on the list putting Pirsig and you side-by-side, to see what
"pops out." Many, many people on the list objected to this colligation and
some pointed out that you had already stated that you and Pirsig were on a
"different wavelength." I was unperturbed by this, having already noted
it, and replied that it didn't really matter what you thought, it mattered
how I put the two of you together. I could practically feel their ensuing
smugness over the coaxil cables.
The reason for this smugness is because many Pirsig enthusiasts take it as
a badge of honor that Pirsig is purportedly ignored by the philosophy
community. This image is sponsored by Pirsig himself in his second book
"Lila." I think his "outsider" status is bred because Pirsig and the other
participants are looking to the wrong community of academics for
recognition. The philosophical community they look to is one that is
predominantly of the Analytic tradition. Most on the discussion list don't
know the difference, but, rather than Analytic philosophy departments, they
should be looking to literature departments for treatment of Pirsig. This
is all besides the fact that I've been taught Pirsig twice in philosophy
intro courses (once in high school and once in college).
With your drifting towards literature departments in the past few decades,
my recommendation of Pirsig's book to you comes partly from my desire to
see a really good and sensitive treatment of it, from a philosophical
standpoint, a literary standpoint, and a historical standpoint, meaning its
place within American thought and culture. Judging from its huge
commercial success in the 70's and its continued success even today, almost
thirty years later, it apparently hit some sort of chord with the public.
To speculate on what this chord is might prove to be an interesting and
profitable project.
So, my suggestion amounts to this: re-read "Zen and...". I realize that
people aren't always inspired by the same things, that one person's
Paradise Island is another's Desert Island, but my hope is simply that
maybe another reading of it might prove fruitful. Like I said before, my
suggestion is mainly prompted by my own bubbling enthusiasm. I will note
one similarity and dissimilarity between the two of you, as evidenced in
the titles of your two autobiographical accounts: Pirsig's book and your
"Trotsky and the Wild Orchids." The theme set up in Pirsig's title, "Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," is one of bringing together, or
fuzzying the borders between, the three Kantian value spheres: Morality,
Art, and Science, respectively. This is something I think you might be
sympathetic towards. The theme in your title, "Trotsky and the Wild
Orchids," is one of holding apart the public and private spheres. This is
something that Pirsig does not do. After fuzzying the borders, he can be
read as attempting to hold justice and reality in the same vision (to use
your words). I won't go into any other similarities and dissimilarities
between the two of you as I've already taken up enough of your time, but,
suffice to say, I believe the similarities to be strong enough to prompt me
to write you (though it could be just the enthusiasm).
Thank you for your time and patience,
Matt
---------------
He wrote back:
>Thanks very much for your message. I'll try to get around to re-reading
Pirsig.
That's all I ask for. For me the colligation has proved fruitful, but not
necessarily for everyone. I think the colligation has been successful
insofar as its really struck up the differences between two separate
readings of Pirsig that have caused problems here, the Kantian reading and
the Hegelian reading (as I called them recently). Its pointed out that
Pirsig seems to support universalist readings and historicist readings.
I've found this helpful. Others may not. But I don't find it very
presuasive to say that the historicist reading is wrong. As far as I can
tell, there's textual support for it. The two readings, in my mind, punch
up a tension in Pirsig's writing.
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 Jan 13 2003 - 00:26:59 GMT