From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 21:33:53 GMT
Hey Wolff,
Wolff said:
Yes, "telling' is Quality, but believing without independent and critical
thought is not. Can you not know Quality without the benefit of someone
pointing to it with words from the past?
It would seem to me everyone knows Quality. If you arrive at this Quality on
your own, and learn to think in terms of Quality, then you are much better
prepared to place Quality in your everyday decisions. If you learn Quality
from someone else, and ask how this someone else would think in the event
you needed to make a Quality decision, How can you know?
Matt:
It seems to me that you are using the wrong weapon to fight me. If Quality
is as ubiquitous as Pirsig says it is, then you need a more pointed tool to
go from "all we are is experience/values" to "believing without independent
and critical thought is not [Quality]," which was my point before. Because,
based on the ubiquity of Quality, believing without independent and critical
thought _is_ Quality, it just happens to be low Quality from most
well-thought individuals.
Luckily, Pirsig does happen to provide you with a handy weapon to beat me
with that I think would be appropriate: call me a philosophologist.
Actually, I'm surprised you haven't yet. Part of what I call Pirsig's
"philosophical individualism," which is what I would say you are defending,
is his attack on the professionals. He fashioned the epithet "technician"
to beat them with in ZMM and "philosophologist" to beat them with in Lila.
I haven't commented on his use of "technician" in ZMM, but I have disputed
his use of "philosophologist." I don't think it works for what he wants.
For instance, you feel the need to defend the desire of thinking for
yourself, but where I have I ever said otherwise? I don't dig around in the
history of philosophy to parrot out some trivia. I use them as weapons.
One can think of the history of philosophy is an arsenal of weapons. You go
back and take what is applicable to your time and situation, and what isn't
you leave. Intellectual historians (which is basically what Pirsig is
accusing professional philosophers of being) might not like it, but that's
why I, nor the professional philosophers, are intellectual historians.
I feel like I detect something like the flavor of "philosophy as a natural
kind" in your discourse, but I'm not really sure. I'm really just not sure
what you're rebelling against in my writing. You say you've read
"Philosophologology," well, what in there makes your hair stand on end? The
whole point of philosophy is to have a conversation. Or at the least, the
whole point of the MD is to. You say it didn't change your view, which
means you must have a different point of view. What is it? What
substantive differences do we have? You say, "it seems I have my own way of
looking at things without pointing toward someone else's isms, ists, or
ians," but that's not a substantive difference, that's a difference in
style, in weaponry. If it _were_ a substantive difference, it would land
you in the same company as the logical positivists, who thought philosophy
and the history of philosophy were two _very_ distinct subjects.
Part of what I detect in the "we are all (specially) connected to Quality"
camp that detests some of my views is an air of anti-conversation. After
all, if we are all connected to Quality, that we all need to have a rugged,
American individualistic outlook, we all need to make it on our own, make
decisions on our own, then why would you need conversation? Why would you
need to talk to anybody, ask their opinion, weigh opinions, have arguments?
If we are all specially attuned to Quality or Dynamic Quality, then why have
an argument? You'll just know which position has high Quality.
This seems to me to be a very dangerous idea. You brought up the danger of
the Jonses in one of your replies, but it seems to me that if you aren't
having a conversation, you are in much more danger of drinking the kool-aid.
Why is conversation so good? I think the odds are much higher of you
coming out with a high Quality position or opinion after having a
conversation than in lieu of one.
My position is pretty well laid out in "Philosophologology," of why I think
the history of philosophy as an armory as opposed to a tomb, an arsenal of
live ammo as opposed to an archive. So, if you want to have a conversation
about this, why don't we start there? What don't you like?
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/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 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 22:37:56 GMT