From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 17 2005 - 21:45:27 GMT
Matt said some time earlier somewhere:
If you do this, (deny the existence of an appearance/reality distinction in
Pirsig) the question that I then want answered is: Why do we need a
mediated/unmediated distinction? What part does it play, what work does it
do? ...But what I want to know is: _why doesn't this create an
appearance/reality distinction?_
DMB said:
I think I understand your question here. If I may rephrase, you're asking if
we deny SOM in Pirsig (the A/R distinction), why do we need the
static/Dynamic split (mediated and unmediated experience)? You're saying
that if we view Pirsig's split as if it were the same as Kant's, then we
have really just created the same problem. Is that about right?
Matt:
No. I'm not asking why you need the static/Dynamic split. I've always
liked the static/Dynamic split. I'm asking "Why do we need a
mediated/unmediated distinction?" More importantly, if you insist on using
a mediated/unmediated experience distinction to characterize the
static/Dynamic split, "_why doesn't this create an appearance/reality
distinction?_"
I understand Pirsig's attack on SOM looks very much like the attack on the
appearance/reality distinction. I understand that the MoQ is supposed to
take the place of SOM. But in Pirsig's explication of the MoQ, using the
distinctions he does, such as that between mediated and unmediated
experience, he very often seems to fall into traditional problems, problems
he's supposedly already gotten rid of. This is the heart and soul of what
I've been saying, really all I've ever said. There seems to be a tension in
Pirsig's writings.
You talk about a cultural blindspot. Here's the kicker: why can't I come
back and claim the same thing about your misunderstanding and blindness to
what I've been saying for two years?
What's more, why don't you ever answer some of the difficult (I would say,
impossible) questions I leave scattered in my posts, questions it would seem
you'd need to be able to answer if you were going to field a
mediated/unmediated distinction?
Some Questions:
"How do you know capitalism is more Dynamic than communism?" (Jan 9)
"How do we know when we are being Dynamic? How do we know when we are
following Dynamic Quality and not static patterns? How do we verify it?"
(Jan 11, "Reply to DMB")
"If unmediated reality is better than mediated reality, then how do we know
when we are apprehending unmediated reality?"
"How do we know when we are Dynamic, when we are following Dynamic Quality?"
"How do you establish criteria for determining which is which, criteria that
will satisfy the skeptic?"
"Why does Pirsig not need to answer the skeptic when the determination of
good and evil, better and worse, hinges on distinguishing between static
patterns and Dynamic Quality?" (Jan 11, "Reply to Paul")
"How do you know a "simple, unambiguous and direct" [Dynamic] response is
better than a "complex, ambiguous and indirect" [static] one?"
"Can we look at a philosophical proposition and instantaneously know whether
it is good or not? Isn’t this what Pirsig’s implying, that the Dynamic
insight is the one immediately in front of you [knowledge by acquaintance]?"
"How do we know this immediate flash of insight is leading us aright and not
afoul?"
"How do we know our immediate flash of insight is better and not
degenerate?"
"How do you know the way you've 'described' Dynamic Quality is the right
way?"
"How do you know when you are experiencing Dynamic Quality?"
"How do you know whether you are being Dynamic or degenerate?"
"How do you know whether you are following static patterns or being
Dynamic?"
and finally
"I think one other way of putting my difficulties are in response to Dan's
misguided reply: 'To answer Matt's question: The best way I know of is to
ask oneself, is this a Quality path I am on? Only you will know the answer
(kenntnis). If the answer is no, then go a better way.'
Okay, so I ask myself, "Am I on a Quality path? Is my cross-examination of
Pirsig’s philosophy going in the right direction? Am I really detecting an
appearance/reality distinction unbeknownst to Pirsig or his mainline
interpreters?"
Answer: "Oh yeah, absolutely."
How does one respond to that?"
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 17 2005 - 23:27:06 GMT