From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 05 2005 - 20:06:16 GMT
Hey Scott,
Scott said:
Basically, I agree, about conversation, though one can be more detailed, in
saying that that conversation should be one of critical thinking, dialectic,
and open-mindedness. However, I do not agree that behavior is the only clue,
nor is belonging to a tradition that stamps them with approval. What
tradition did Merrell-Wolff belong to? His background was that of a son of a
Christian minister, educated at Harvard, but his main source for his theory
and practice leading up to his Awakening was the Vedantist Shankara. But he
also gave a lot of credit to his interest in philosophy (Western and
Eastern) and to mathematics. And then his second Awakening took him by
surprise, since all his reading had not said anything about it. Then he
found some references in Buddhism and in Eckhart that likely referred to it.
So what was his tradition?
And, of course, the only "behavior" of his that I can use to evaluate him
(he died in 1985) is his writing. Yet I find him very convincing, in part
because in his writing he explores his own experience critically.
Lessing said (roughly) "Revelation is not rational when it is revealed, but
is revealed so that it may become rational". All these reports, from Buddha
to Call-In Cleo, can be considered revelatory candidates. Reason (aka
conversation, critical thinking, dialectic, open-mindedness) must sort them
out. There are, of course, no a priori criteria for doing so.
Matt:
I'm using "tradition" in a wide sense, in which all discourses belong to
some tradition or another or many. For instance, Rorty: he draws on many
different philosophical traditions. The way I'm using it, tradition is a
constructed thing, and the more often you construct it in the same way, the
more likely you are to call it a "tradition" (as opposed to "just the way
that one guy talks or behaves"). So Merrell-Wolf was working within as many
traditions as you can place him in. He drew explicitly from ______________
(I'll let you fill in the blanks, I'm not familiar with him), but if enough
people are drawn to the peculiar way he does things, if enough people are
caught by his creative mixing of the old with novel new creations, someday
people may look back to him as the creator his own tradition.
I'm using "tradition" (and I think Sam is doing the same) as Wittgenstein
used "language game": things only gain meaning when in a tradition or
language game. And "behavior" I'm using in the wide sense of a person's
writing is part of his behavior. Sam and I are basically trying to apply
this Wittgensteinian point to Pirsig. I think, by opposing tradition to
reason, you look like you're resisting this point, meaning you look too
Kantian. By saying that traditions are the only way things gain meaning,
we're saying that its only by people working within language games that
decide what things mean: there isn't something called "reason" that works
independently of a tradition that decides meaning. That looks like Kant's
Tribunal of Reason. Another way of putting this point is saying with
Heidegger that man doesn't speak language, language speaks man, or with
Pirsig (ZMM) that man didn't create religion, religion created man, or with
Pirsig (Lila) that man doesn't have static patterns, static patterns have
man. I think all of these points are the same therapeutic point that
Wittgenstein was making and that Sam and I would like to continue to press
on Pirsig. People can't stand outside of traditions because people are made
up of traditions. And I think you probably agree on this Wittgensteinian
point as when you say that "reason" is also known as "conversation, critical
thinking, dialectic, open-mindedness."
Sam and I want to say essentially as you're saying it: a good conversation,
a good tradition, a _living_ tradition is one "of critical thinking,
dialectic, and open-mindedness." A tradition is dead when it doesn't
change. Of course, at this point it might make more sense to talk about
people: a good person is someone filled with "critical thinking, dialectic,
and open-mindedness." A person is dead when they don't change (Nietzsche
would love putting it this way). A living person is someone who isn't
dogmatic: they keep changing, creating themselves.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
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 : Sat Mar 05 2005 - 20:10:08 GMT