RE: MD Solidarity truth

From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 01:27:52 GMT

  • Next message: Erin N.: "MD Making Sense of It"

    Kevin,

    I've been slacking lately, trying to finish other projects, so I forgot to
    respond to this. I go back because I think its worth it.

    Kevin's pooka analogy:
    Are you familiar with the film Harvey (1950) starring Jimmy Stewart?
    Elwood P. Dowd (played by Stewart) believes he is in the company of a 6'
    rabbit named Harvey who is invisible to all but him. Everyone thinks
    Elwood is nuts.

    Harvey tells Elwood he is a pooka (websters dict. A mischievous spirit
    in Irish folklore) and therefore capable of extraordinary things,
    including being selectively visible. This explanation suffices for
    Elwood, but not for everyone else. Elwood explains that Harvey is a
    pooka to everyone else, but they still think Elwood is nuts (perhaps
    more so).

    Of course, at the end of the film Harvey reveals himself to Elwood's
    psychologist and leaves Elwood's company. He is still invisible to
    everyone outside of Elwood and Dr. Chumley, but now Harvey's existence
    is no longer merely Elwood's opinion.

    Is Harvey real? Is he logically consistent, in agreement with
    experience, and economical in terms of explanation? Well, from Elwood's
    perspective--yes. From everyone else's--no.

    How do we determine the truth about Harvey?

    If we were Irishmen familiar with stories about pookas would that change
    our minds?

    If we lived in the 11th Century and Elwood was Pope would that change
    our minds?

    If Elwood was a world-famous scientist?

    If Elwood was a philosopher named Pirsig and his pooka was named
    Quality, would that change our minds?

    In my mind, it's not a question about Harvey. It's not a question about
    Elwood. It's a question about ourselves and our worldview. Are we
    dynamic enough to allow for an Elwood in our society? Is our worldview
    too static to assimilate and explain a pooka?

    Matt:
    To me, this is the perfect example of both how the truth of sentences is
    generated and a perfect analogy to some of the things Pirsig talks about.

    The first three questions ("If we were Irishmen...," "If we lived in the
    11th Century...," and "If Elwood was a world-famous scientist?") points up
    the difference in various communities on deciding the truth of statements.
    This reminds me of the "ghosts of the West" discourse that Pirsig has in Ch
    3. Different contexts and communities have different assumptions from
    which they reason from. As Pirsig says, "We are all of us very arrogant
    and conceited about running down other people's ghosts but just as ignorant
    and barbaric and superstitious about our own." This isn't a relativist
    statement, it is a Kuhnian one. The earlier communities had different ways
    of reasoning from ours, one's that can't be argued for and against without
    begging the question. The only way to decide between them is to decide
    which one helps us cope with the world better.

    The second and third, in particular, represent the change in who are
    cultural heroes are: from priests to scientists. Rorty, in "The Decline of
    Redemptive Truth and the Rise of a Literary Culture" (can be found at his
    homepage, www.stanford.edu/~rrorty), suggests that we continue the
    progression from scientists as cultural heroes to novelists. In this way,
    we can see the fourth question ("If Elwood was a philosopher named
    Pirsig...") as representative of this literary culture, though we wouldn't
    take Pirsig's word because he was a writer. In a literary culture, we'd
    read lots and lots of books to gain many perspectives. Our choice of
    Pirsig as our main hero would not stop us from taking in other books and
    adding others to our pantheon. If we do not make the switch to a literary
    culture, the fourth question is a penetrating critique of the way that some
    hypostatize their favorite philosopher as the new priest. Some will
    certainly think that that's what I'm doing to Rorty, but that's certainly
    only to count how many times I mention his name rather than actually
    reading what I'm suggesting about him.

    The last question in particular is why I enjoyed the analogy so much. I
    think Pirsig would be quite partial to it.

    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 : Sun Jan 19 2003 - 01:22:30 GMT