From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 15 2005 - 19:47:52 GMT
Marsha said to Sam:
I don't think you will ever accept the Metaphysics of Quality, because to do
so would negate your chosen vocation.
Matt:
This is what I mean about the uselessness of certain replies. Because as
far as I can see, the sword cuts right back the way it came. If we take
"vocation" in this instance to mean "held beliefs" (given that that's the
problem apparently with Sam's vocation), Sam can just as easily reply, "I
don't think you will ever accept post-Wittgensteinian contemporary
philosophy, because to do so would negate _your_ chosen vocation (i.e., a
Pirsigian advocate in all of its glory)."
Now, most people revel in their open hostility to contemporary, professional
philosophy in all of its forms, so if people like Sam and I reply like this,
others will take it as a badge of honor that they'll never become, say,
post-Wittgensteinian. But again, the sword cuts both ways. Sam and I can
equally revel (though obviously we don't quite revel in our opposition to
some of Pirsig's tenets the way many here display their antiprofessionalism
on their sleeve) in the way that we will never become "full-blooded
Pirsigians" (as defined by the people who oppose us). Because both sides
think the other side sucks. And who would want to have sucky beliefs?
Nobody. But you can see how the conversation breaks down at this point.
Sam and I have been in the process of trying to show others why we think
some of Pirsig's language and terminology leads to these so-called "sucky
beliefs." But much of the time we are met with blank-faced hostility, which
leads to the conversation immediately breaking down.
This isn't a fan site. At least, it hasn't been a fan site for a long time.
People come here to join in conversation with others about their beliefs
(most of which revolving around Pirsig) in the hope of being illuminated
somehow. Some people don't find others illuminating. That happens. It
happens everywhere--all the time. It doesn't mean there's a "cultural
blindspot." That's the type of full scale paranoia that leads people to
think that the Jews are running the world, and other nonsense like that.
_Anybody_ who was impressed by Pirsig enough to show up here is already in
the process of revising their beliefs and ready to revise the language they
were handed by their culture. The ability to parse the bad stuff, the
"blindspots," from the good stuff, regular ole' "common sense," is a large
undertaking that takes no small amount of inquiring conversation. It takes
a lot of space and a lot of energy to convince reasonable people, even
like-minded people, of these things. Look at Pirsig: he took a lot of time,
energy, and space to write the things he did. And that's the way it should
be, because if we weren't exercising our critical thinking, any ole'
demogogue could come along and convince us all to be Scientologists.
But when the conversation breaks down, what are we to do? When hostility
ensues, and the conversation breaks down, both sides look to the other like
they've been won over by a demogogue.
This is why I think the antiprofessionalism is out of place and, in the end,
extremely detrimental. To people here _and_ to the profession. I mean,
isn't the origin of the antiprofessionalism in the fact that everybody's
pissed off that Pirsig isn't being read in Phil 101 classes, or rather
(since he is being read in Phil 101 classes), isn't being taught to grad
students in seminars? And you're pissed because Pirsig has a lot to _say_
to the profession? That he should be _included_ in the conversation? But
do you really think he's being excluded because of some cultural conspiracy
against him? Or is it because he simply isn't in the conversation yet, so
nobody knows to look to him?
Well, how do you get him in the conversation if you're busy bad-mouthing the
profession? And if you took antiprofessionalism to its end-point, the
profession was destroyed? Then there's no conversation. Now what do you
do?
Wouldn't it be more prudent if you thought Pirsig had something to add to
contemporary philosophy to try and get a conversation going with the
professionals? And to try and keep that conversation going?
Isn't that what Sam and I and others who are trying to bring in other
philosophers and sit them side by side with Pirsig trying to do--enter him
into conversation with contemporary philosophy (of various forms and
stripes)?
So why is this bad? You may not like our philosophy, but the hostility
shuts the conversation down. And then you're still on the other side.
Actually, much like Pirsig, who wanted to get thrown out the front door of
the University of Chicago so he could brush himself off and say, "Well, I
tried," and leave with a clear conscience. And not only that, be able to
say, "They must not be ready for me. Must be a cultural blindspot in
place."
Nobody wins like this. Least of all Dynamic Quality.
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 : Tue Mar 15 2005 - 19:51:36 GMT