From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 20 2005 - 23:34:29 GMT
Hello everyone
>From: "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: RE: MD Whither "direct," "pure," and "immediate"?
>Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:50:35 -0600
>
>Hey Dan,
>
>
>I'll I'm going to say is that it would seem that you should also make some
>sort of comment or answer towards my recent two-part post "Pirsig
>Institutionalized" considering that the antiprofessionalism is turned up
>full blast in this reply (combined stunningly, paradoxically, and
>rhetorically to good effect with a flexing of professional interpretive
>authority).
Hi Matt
I've read your recent two-parter but judging by your rather rude reply to
Joe it didn't seem worth my while working up a reply myself. I run a
business that keeps me busy sixteen to eighteen hours daily so I have to be
sparing with the time I spend at moq.org lest my fiction writings suffer.
>Also, consider this segment of a post I sent to Marsha recently:
Yes, I did consider that as well.
>
>
>Matt:
>I mean, what evidence do you have that you've made an "honestly rigorous
>effort at understanding" Pirsig and I haven't?
Your wanting to do away with RMP's pre-intellectual experience triggered my
response, mainly. But you're right, I have no evidence that I've made an
honest effort and you haven't.
>Because you are never critical of Pirsig and I am sometimes? Is that what
>you call not having "preconceived notions"?
No that's not at all what I mean. I mean that when one has a full cup of tea
it is useless to try and fill it more for all it does is spill and make a
mess. Criticism has nothing to do with it. If you read LC you'll see that I
make some comments to Mr. Pirsig that may be deemed criticisms but they are
only aimed at illuminating that which I fail to understand.
>What could you possibly know about me as a philosopher, student, and person
>to question my honesty and sincerity, let alone my professional integrity?
Only what I have read in your essays and your postings.
>Remember, it's a mark of professionalism to make honest efforts at
>understanding. Do you think I'm _lying_ when I say in "Confessions" that I
>was obsessed with Pirsig long before I even knew who Rorty was? Do you
>really think I'm lying when I tell you that I became obsessed with Pirsig
>_before_ I knew anything about philosophy, when I was a first-semester
>freshman taking Philosophy 101, and that it was an obsession with _Pirsig_
>that led me around to reading other philosophy, that it was an obsession
>with _Pirsig_ that led me to read Rorty, the supposed person who's rotting
>my brain?
Of course I don't think you're lying. I do think you're taking this a bit
too far though.
>
>And I think my honest effort _and_ my understanding of Pirsig is not only
>displayed through my development throughout my stay at the MD (from 2001 to
>the present), but in particular through the time and energy I spend in
>producing evidence, fashioning arguments, developing interpretations and
>merging them all together in extended essays.
>
>I just don't understand how people can be so dismissive of all the work
>I've put in to understanding Pirsig, and then have the nerve to call _me_
>dishonest. Do you really think I'm doing this for fun?
Well, yes. That's what I'm doing it for. Fun. At least no one has offered me
a paycheck for any of my postings at moq.org as of yet. I have to admit it
would be nice if they did though. I put literally thousands of hours into LC
and have barely made back what it cost to publish the book, much less
anything for my time. But I didn't do it for the money. I did it because it
seemed better to than not.
>That I'm just doing this to annoy everyone here?
No I don't think that you're doing this to annoy people.
>You could say that about certain others, like perhaps Straun Hellier, who
>just seemed to like to come on and say nasty things.
I haven't heard from my friend Struan since LC was published but I never got
the impression he just came on to say nasty things. He didn't seem to attack
anyone unless he was attacked first, at least from what I've read anyway.
And I have rarely met anyone as intelligent as Struan. It was always my
pleasure to converse with him.
>But I think, given all available evidence, there are few people who are as
>obsessed about Pirsig as I am, who are as obsessed in trying to make Pirsig
>matter. I mean, do you honestly believe that I'm trying to _destroy_
>Pirsig's philosophy?
Well, it seems to me that by doing away with certain aspects of his
philosophy, you're attempting to make the MOQ into what you want it to be
instead of what Robert Pirsig envisioned it to be. But as I say, that's just
my opinion.
>That all my efforts at criticism and then reconstruction are not an honest
>effort, from my point of view, at trying to make Pirsig's philosophy
>better?
Perhaps from your point of view, yes. That's basically what I'm trying to
get across to you, so I'm glad you understand.
>Am I not, after all, following Pirsig when he says, "The suffering which
>the Buddhists regard as only that which is to be escaped, is seen by the
>MOQ as merely the negative side of the progression toward Quality (or, just
>as accurately, the expansion of quality). Without the suffering to propel
>it, the cart would not move forward at all." If criticism is something
>like negative suffering, then aren't I an integral part of the expansion of
>Pirsig's philosophy? That only after engaging me does Pirsig's philosophy
>become stronger? Whatever doesn't kill us will only make us stronger?
I don't know about that. There are times when it seems best not to engage,
especially when I get the impression that anything I say will be taken the
wrong way. In the old days I had a lot more time but as I already said, my
time is very limited these days.
>
>Who knows? Maybe Rorty is a blight on the land and Pirsig's literal word
>is the Way and the Truth. But how can you sit there in your computer chair
>and write that I'm dishonest and insincere when the only _honest_ way of
>knowing _any_ of these things is to engage with my arguments, my
>interpretations, and my carefully constructed essays?
Actually, I've made quite extensive notes on your most recent essay which I
may share with you when I deem the time is right. I need more time though,
and I don't know if my efforts are worth the effort, if you know what I
mean. Perhaps this will prove to me that they are.
>
>Please, Dan, leave the insults to DMB.
You probably fail to realize it, but like Platt and his recent rants against
rock and roll, you are definitely insulting me with postings like your
recent two-parter and your "Philosophology" essay. So I could say the same
to you, but I won't.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
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 Mar 21 2005 - 01:34:20 GMT