From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 20 2005 - 20:28:21 GMT
Matt and all y'all:
On Sunday the 13th Matt Kundert said to Dan:
I've received much animated derision over my "misunderstanding" of
Pirsig. ...Don't get me wrong: I hope my interpretation becomes the
dominant, mainstream interpretation. But I was under the impression that I
was the minority and offering a dissenting opinion, not the dominant
ideology.
dmb says:
Harry Frankfurt, a professor of philosophy at Princeton, has recently
attempted to assemble a "theoretical understanding of bullshit" in a small
essay-length book titled simply, "ON BULLSHIT". The liar, he explains, is
distinctly different from the bullshiter. The liar believes he knows the
truth, the facts of the matter. Even when the truth is being hidden from
others there is a certain respect for the facts. They are taken seriously in
that the trouble is taken to hide them. The bullshiter, on the other hand,
does not have any concern for facts. His interest is not in revealing or
inhiding the truth. The aim of the bullshiter is only interested in
persuasion, in the manipulation of opinion regardless of the facts. What's
my point? I just think this is a very important distinction to make if we
are going to discuss "professional authority" and the "dominant
interpretaton". I mean, can't we all agree that it would be slightly tragic
if the mainstream or dominant interpretation of Pirsig's work were decided
on the basis of anything OTHER than the quality of the interpretation. And
yes, I'm striking this note of caution because I detected a slight whiff of
manure here and in Matt's defense of the "professionals"...
(The following Mattisms are from the "Pirsig Institutionalized" thread.)
On Thursday the 17th Matt Kundert said:
The difficulty in the MD, though, is that, because of Pirsig's
antiprofessionalism, _nobody is supposed to have any authority_. And
Pirsig's dutiful heirs have absorbed that sentiment (if not explicitly that
doctrine). Pirsig's own professional class has been emerging for the last
eight years, yet rarely is it acknowledged. There is one particular
instance of this antiprofessionalism in the MD that I would like to
highlight: the problem of "jargon." Jargon words are specialized words used
by a profession to help in their inquiry. It has often been remarked that
there is too much jargonizing, that the spirit of Pirsig requires us to be
"clear and plain spoken." It is unclear, however, how we can be free of
jargon when we are doing philosophy.
dmb says:
Dutiful anti-authoritarians? That's good. Very funny. I also think the idea
that the participant in this discussion group constitutes a "professional
class" is a bit of a knee-slapper too. But what I really want to respond to
is "the problem of jargon". I have compalined about your use of jargon many
times in the past and feel compelled to inform you that those complaints
were not motivated by anti-professionalism or anti-authoritarianism. (I do
not see you or myself as a professional or as an authority, by the way.) You
may recall that it was motivated by a desire for clarity. I think everyone
understands that jargon can be quite useful and requires familarity for it
to be useful. (At the risk of looking like I'm arguing from authority rather
than evidence, I know jargon can be useful because of an article published
yesterday in the journal "DUH!") As I've said before, it is simply a matter
of understanding who is in the room with you. Its a simple matter of
understanding your audience. Jargon disables you ability to effectively
communicate in THIS room, Matt. If you are interested in establishing your
view as the "dominant interpretation" then jargon only defeats your purpose.
There is no way anyone will buy what you're selling unless they know what it
is. BUT MORE THAN THAT, you have introduced your jargon in such a way that
there is no apparent connection to the MOQ. I mean, I remember that it was
serveral months before I realized that the "correspondence theory of truth"
refered to anything in Pirsig's books, let alone his central enemy. Even
more than that, I sincerely wonder if YOU realized it. I think you're having
trouble with the jargon in that it tends to create a rididity in your
thinking, as if the idea of a correspondence theory could only be expressed
in those terms and not in terms that Pirsig has already familiarized the
entire group through the books. I mean, if you're talking about the problems
of SOM in this context it only makes sense to refer to it as SOM. The jargon
can be more successfully introduced here by showing how it would be
expressed in the common tongue. (Reading Pirsig is a requirement for
participation here and so the problems with jargon should, in theory, never
arise.) Again, the complaint about jargon is a complaint about the clarity
of expression. It ain't fancy. Show me a writer who does not understand or
respect his audience and I will show you a very bad writer. Its that simple.
Matt K said on the 17th:
Antiprofessionalism is, of course, the most destructive because it
completely precludes continuance of the conversation (because the
conversation is the profession), but the curt demand to follow the current
power grid also precludes conversation because the critic has been told that
they are simply wrong. Authority, however, within a profession isn't flexed
responsibly like this. Critics are rightly contesting the prevailing
authorities and the current establishment is rightly defending itself, but
the only way for the standoff to resolve itself is through the conversation,
through the marshaling of arguments, interpretations, and evidence. So
while antiprofessionalism is always unresponsible, the response that a
participant "misunderstands" is almost always (except under very basic,
delimited, and narrow respects, respects that rarely attain between long
standing conversants in a long standing argument) an empty gesture because
"understanding" is the crown that is awarded to the winner at the end of an
extended engagement (with "misunderstanding" being conferred to the loser).
And winners, of course, are notoriously difficult to determine during an
ongoing inquiry and will always be continually contested in a healthy
inquiry.
dmb says:
I fail to understand how it stops the conversation to criticize a poster for
"misunderstanding" or for being "wrong". And I find it rather I ironic that
YOU have refused to respond to such criticism from me at nearly every
opportunity and now assert that its the snubees fault and not the snubbers
fault. I mean, its pretty clear to me that you don't really WANT a
conversation, you want to make long-winded pronouncements without
interuption....
Matt concluded on the 17th:
This is why I've been trying to pressure people into writing essays for the
Forum. The interruptery style preferred by most participants in the MD
doesn't allow the room needed for many of the subtle arguments that need to
be forwarded, let alone the simple space restrictions of a post. The essays
would then allow extended presentations of people's various views about
various topics and allow the conversation to move forward,...
dmb says:
It seems to me that this forum is perfect for having conversations and that
the essay forum is the wrong tool. Its about as interactive as a roadside
billboard. I also think its another case of failing to understand one's
readers. I mean, the essay forum should be aimed at web surfers and
philosophy fans who wander by. It should be aimed at introducing Pirsig in a
very inviting way. It should sell the MOQ and the conversation we are having
about it. Instead, its downright scary. I imagine many are dissuaded by it.
To nearly any passerby, Matt's essays will be seem a jumble of impenitrable
jargon filled with the bitter residue of hostile conversations the reader
knows nothing about and will otherwise do nothing to welcome or seduce him.
Its a put off, man. It would be asking too much of Horse to be the editor
and it would be a shame to refuse essays for any arbitrary reasons, but the
point can be made nevertheless.
But beyond the good writing and public relations issues, I can't help but
think there is an unmentioned motive in your attempt to "pressure people
into writing essays". I'm probably flattering myself too much, but I even
suspect that part of it is a desire to get away from me, to avoid my
criticisms of your pragmatism. If that's the case then there is no need seek
safety in the essay forum. You're doing very well at avoiding me and my
criticisms already.
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 : Sun Mar 20 2005 - 20:54:15 GMT