From: khaled Alkotob (khaledsa@juno.com)
Date: Sun Apr 24 2005 - 15:27:24 BST
DMB,
DMB said:
Philosophy is supposed to be about life and if your philosophy is about
philosophy then it is not about life.
And I see this same problem across the board. I love art, but I hate
paintings that are ABOUT PAINTING. I hate poetry that is ABOUT POETRY. I
hate music that is ABOUT MUSIC as well as movies ABOUT MOVIES. And this
is what I mean by my complaints about what you post here. I get the
distinct impression that your philosophy is ABOUT PHILOSOPHY and has very
little to do with what's in your heart. It doesn't come from your life so
much as from the books you've read.
Matt:
Are the books we read not part of our lives?
As I quipped in my paper, "Why is the experience of a book relegated to a
lower position than the experience of a hot dog?"
I followed that with, "There can be no theoretical, universal reason for
this (that would be the kind of “intellectualizing of its hosts behavior”
that Pirsig condemns), though we can give practical, context-dependent
reasons. For instance, in Pirsig's case it is imperative that his quest
for inner peace cross through the history of philosophy. It is important
for him to engage in conversation with the great, dead philosophers to
achieve a measure of wisdom on how to deal with them. This is purity for
his heart, not the heart of philosophy."
So, say what you will that what I write is dead and boring and lifeless.
But that doesn't mean its lifeless to other people, like myself, that are
brought to life by the same things, like the reading of a book. Same
thing goes for the art, poetry, music, and movies you don't like. Some
people do like them because that's what's in their hearts. Those
"practical, context-dependent reasons" are _personal_ reasons. Nobody
can tell you, in a broad sense, whether you are doing philosophy
correctly or the right way because philosophy is deeply personal. And
that's what Pirsig's spirit says. And that's what I've been trying to
repeat, in my own lifeless, substanceless way, against other people here
and against a certain general drift in Pirsig's writings that lends
comfort to those people.
You see what I'm saying?
Matt
Khaled:
Early in the book, Pirsig tells the story of the attempt to fix John
Sutherlad's loose handlebars by using a shim made out of a beer can. Of
course Sutherland would have no part in getting his bike fixed by a part
not out the BMW factory.
Pirsig goes on to explain why the shim made from the beer can is the
PERFECT fix for tightening the handlebars.
I think this is the point DMB is trying to make. Sometimes big words and
concepts get in the way of seeing the truth. Philosophy is the life we
live.
In the movie "Dead Poet Society", the teacher (robin willimas) asks his
students to open their books and tear out the introduction. The editors
of the book were trying to explain what poetry is. They were trying to
establish an artificial explanation to the methods used AFTER the author
had written the piece. It's no different than the art critic attempting
to insert his interpretation after the painter was done. A good painter
would have poured his talents and feelings into the piece with very
little regard to a plan. Yes some former training is needed, but that is
long gone, and now it can be applied without thinking about it.
Philosophy, is but the tool. Just like I the photographer who had to
learn how to use the camera, when i am doing the person's portrait, I am
no longer thinking film and lens, I am out to capture the character. Make
a photo that shows a face with a soul in it.
KSA
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 Apr 24 2005 - 15:33:17 BST