From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 22 2005 - 15:53:54 GMT
Matt Kundert stated March 17th 2005:
Pirsig’s key message to us is his recitation of Socrates’ message to
Phaedrus: “And what is good, Phaedrus,/And what is not good—/Need we ask
anyone these things?”
Ant McWatt notes:
Very good point, Matt.
Matt Kundert continued March 17th 2005:
This strikes two chords. First is a kind of antiauthoritarianism that
mimics the Protestant move. No one has a special relation to the Good over
and above anyone else. But notice that not only is one caste’s special
authority destroyed, _anyone else’s_ authority is destroyed. By
internalizing our relation to the Good—Quality—Pirsig has basically told us
that each of us has a special relation to Quality that no one can override.
Ant McWatt notes:
Yes, this is an issue that I’d like Sam Norton to deal with properly at some
point. Why even have a notion of a theistic God or even established
religions when we already have a “special relation to Quality that no one
[else] can override”?
Matt Kundert stated March 17th 2005:
Pirsig almost gives us a thorough-going antiauthoritarianism, but not quite.
Ant McWatt notes:
The “not quite” is the old “Kuntdertian” tightrope walking again. As we
will see in the following.
Matt Kundert stated March 17th 2005:
This is because of the second chord that is struck by Socrates’ rhetorical
question: antiprofessionalism.
Antiprofessionalism is a special case of the populist rhetoric I talked
about in the earlier essay. It specifically rests on the assumption that
each person has a general, though specific, special relation to the subject
matter (whatever it may be). In Pirsig’s case, every person has a special
relation to Quality. Because of this assumption, the believer is then
caused to rail against professionals masquerading as authorities over the
subject material, in this case professional philosophers.
Ant McWatt notes:
This is a highly misleading fallacy. Pirsig is not saying that you
shouldn’t take into account what “professionals” state about a subject are
but that – as far as one can – rely on ones’ own sense of quality as the
ultimate arbiter.
If anything, Pirsig’s project with ZMM was to improve the professional
standards of the English profession in that ideas are introduced by him in
how to encourage students to produce higher quality original work i.e. to
give that Dynamic edge over the static traditional notions of what is
considered high quality.
Matt Kundert continued March 17th 2005:
Pirsig’s antiprofessionalism comes out most strongly with his introduction
of the term “philosophology.” For Pirsig, contemporary philosophers have
barred “amateurs” from the field, despite the fact that the subject material
they think about is open to all.
Ant McWatt notes:
Again, this is misleading. The central concern of Pirsig is rather to
encourage people to produce their own literature, philosophy or art by
Dynamically involving themselves in creative acts rather than being reactive
spectators of other people’s literature, philosophy and art. It’s always
beneficial to be inspired by the traditional masters of the arts, philosophy
and literature but to lead a more fulfilled, creative (i.e. high quality)
life it is better to be involved in one’s own acts of creation. The
situationists had a very similar sentiment about this.
Matt Kundert stated March 17th 2005:
The effects of antiprofessionalism towards philosophy, however, are
catastrophic. If the problems of philosophy are conspicuous and problematic
to all, then it is of utmost importance that everybody solve them. But if
we’ve disbarred authorities from the field, because we are our own
authorities based on our own special relation to Quality,
Ant McWatt notes:
But, of course, we haven’t disbarred philosophology on MOQ Discuss.
References are made to traditional philosophical authorities all the time
(including Pirsig’s own comments in “Lila’s Child”). The trick is to
question these authorities in order to produce a higher quality philosophy.
Matt Kundert stated March 17th 2005:
Then what would count as a successful solution to the problems of
philosophy? Who would decide? If we aren’t supposed ask _anyone_, then we
are our own judges, meaning that whenever we aren’t bothered by the
problems, by whatever solution we’ve come up with, then presumably we’ve
solved them. But most people are _naturally_ not bothered by the problems
of philosophy, though Pirsig thinks we should be because it would seem that
he identifies many of the problems of contemporary society, our “spiritual
crisis,” with problems of philosophy.
Ant McWatt notes:
Rather it is a problem with values in modern Western society that Pirsig is
concerned with. Philosophy is just a tool he uses in order to help deal
with this “spiritual crisis”.
Matt Kundert continued March 17th 2005:
But, again then, how would we know if we’ve solved our spiritual crisis if
we’ve barred all authorities from the field, how would we know if we’re not
bothered by philosophical problems because we’re ignorant of them, or
because we’ve actually solved them?
Ant McWatt notes:
Again, this statement is just fallacious especially as there are people on
MOQ Discuss (including Matt and myself) involved with professional
philosophology and its various authorities.
Matt Kundert continued March 17th 2005:
So after dispatching the reigning authorities over philosophical problems
with his strong sense of antiauthoritarianism-cum-antiprofessionalism, we
are left wondering who’s going to tell us when our search for the solutions
of the problems of philosophy is over, particularly if we could be wrong.
This is where Pirsig’s antiprofessionalism turns naturally, ironically, and
paradoxically (though entirely predictably) into antiestablishmentarianism.
Ant McWatt notes:
Social establishments such as universities and scientific institutes are
beneficial as long as they support and don’t compromise intellectual
quality.
Matt Kundert stated March 17th 2005:
Pirsig wants to knock out the reigning establishment…
Ant McWatt notes:
No, I think he just wants to improve contemporary society and this, of
course, includes educational establishments.
Matt Kundert continued March 17th 2005:
But somebody has to fill the void. Pirsig’s philosophy is exactly what
fills this void. While cheering Pirsig on in his railing against the evil,
egg-headed establishment, we are concurrently, subtly, and slyly won over to
Pirsig’s philosophy.
Ant McWatt notes:
Throughout LILA, Pirsig emphasises that evolutionary development depends on
the play between the static and the Dynamic. As such, Matt’s comment here
(where he is implying that all the static values of society are thrown out
without consideration) beggars belief. Remember that Pirsig states in LILA
that even Victorian morals should be dusted down and examined carefully
before being dismissed.
Matt Kundert stated March 17th 2005:
But this creates another establishment and another profession, this time
under the authority of Pirsig, rather than Plato, Descartes, and Kant. The
problem with antiprofessionalism (in all of its forms) is that its rhetoric
is aimed at destroying professional work, but its very act relies on
professionalism because there is no “work” outside of “professional work.”
Pirsig uses antiprofessionalist rhetoric (like all others who use it) to
destroy prevailing attitudes, but only to replace them with his own.
Ant McWatt notes:
And in this paragraph Matt enters a realm of fantasy. There’s a difference
between thinking for yourself and blindly destroying the social institutions
(such as universities) which support high quality thought. If this is the
type of idea that Matt is presently deriving from Rorty then the latter
really is a bad influence. “Hey kids – Uncle Dick here! Now listen to me –
if you do philosophy, don’t get involved in politics, don’t be original and
don’t question any authority.” I can hear the “Sieg Heils” ringing out in
Rorty’s banal world right now. And, yes, it is exactly this type of
thinking that help facilitates atrocities such as Auschwitz and badly judged
actions such as the Iraqi invasion.
Matt, I’ll address any points not already questioned by anyone else in
“Pirsig Institutionalized - Part Two” in a later post.
Best wishes,
Anthony
P.S. Anyone engaged in Rortyan philosophy would surely be interested in how
their ideas were considered by a philosophical authority. Professor Ronald
Pine was one of the few such authorities that appeared when “Pirsig + Rorty”
was typed into Google and the fact that he liked Pirsig and disliked Rorty
was just one of those things. If you have chosen to ignore Pine’s advice
and references – as it appears from your recent work - then it will only be
to the detriment of your own philosophical development.
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
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 22 2005 - 15:58:21 GMT