From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Apr 24 2005 - 17:26:11 BST
Matt,
Having interjected on another branch of this thread, I though I owedyou some thoughts on the original paper and Ant's comments. Briefnaturally.
When I originally read it last year, I didn't see it as particularlycontentious, and didn't get drawn into the debate. (As the "fallenpriest" advocating Rorty, I could see you laying down red-rags to thePirsig-literalist / MoQist bulls, but not me.)
You were in fact (initially) making a plea for balance, rather thansetting up of philosophy and philosophology as black and white, goodand bad opposites. A message close to my own pragmatic heart as youknow.
Like Pirsig, you can be a rhetorician when you need to be, and as Antpoints out you are naturally selective about quotes and pejorativelanguage to re-inforce your story. (Pirsig's use of the word"parasite" is a classic example.) Pointing out an easy prey, commonenemy, to rally against is the oldest trick in the book.
If your main thesis is that Pirsig consciously conspired to appeal tothe popular masses against establishment philsophers (mere parasiticphilosopholgists, the lot of 'em, style), disingenuous in the way Antsuggest you are, then I see it slightly differently.
I personally think he genuinely believed his MoQ was radical,non-philosophological metaphysics (maybe he still does), and as atrained rhetorician, he used the resources available to him - theskill of writing of a best selling book - to make his point. I thinkyou or I would do the same. He's a human too, hurt by life'sexperiences to date, full of human defence mechanisms and frailties,and despite his precociousness, (and no doubt because of his mentalproblems), later to mature that you or I ?
FWIW I believe you do have a more mature view of philosophy (andphilosophology) than Pirsig. If your aim really was to balance thebooks pre-loaded against philosophology then, you may have gone just abit too far in appearing to discredit Pirsig's motives, just as Pirsigdid himself.
(Actually it's that good old Catch-22 again - arguing a balanced casenever wins an argument - the best defense is offense, and the mostoffensive weapon is logical analysis.)
Ian
On 4/13/05, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com> wrote:> Hello Anthony,> > This didn't get through the first time I sent it this weekend, so I chopped> it into two.> > Thank you for your comments. Here are some replies.> > Anthony said:> I think the "Philosophology" paper is a well written one though it is> essentially misleading and disingenuous. This is because it tends to> replace Pirsig's real views about the philosophy-philosophology distinction> with a more extreme anti-academic strawman which is easier to knock down.> This strawman is largely created by the selective editing of the Pirsig's> quotes used throughout this essay to make him appear more extreme.> …> The quotes from Chapter 26 of LILA (where Pirsig introduces the> philosophy-philosophology distinction) suffer especially heavily from this> Stalinist re-editing. I don't know why you bothered to do this as anyone> referring to LILA while reading your essay (as I did) would quickly see this> re-editing and realise that your portrayal
of Pirsig was highly distorted.> > Matt:> Well, its tough to respond to this because clearly I don't think I was doing> any re-editing. I was hoping people would have their book along with them> and would follow along with me as I read the same sections. If there is any> distortion, it is only the little distortion that needs to occur when you> are following the letter of an argument and you notice it going off track> from the consequences of the argument. I did funnel Pirsig into my argument> a little bit, but that's because I don't think Pirsig followed the> consequences of his distinction between philosophy and philosophology out> properly. He creates the distinction, argues for it, and uses it. Based on> this certain consequences can be drawn and I don't think he does so as he> should. It creates a tension in his writing and puts him in an awkward> spot, which is what I tried to make explicit.> > Now, the only way to really press your claim that I read Pirsig like a> Stalinist bully is to pr!
ovide ex
amples and counter-readings. You provide> one, which normally really isn't enough. But I understand the need for> conciseness, and you can just flex your authority over the reading of Pirsig> to fill in the hole. The problem I see, though, is that your one example> isn't a very good one. For one, it has very little to do with the focus of> my paper. For two, it doesn't pan out that I misread or in any other way> distorted what Pirsig said or is trying to say.> > You said:> For instance, Pirsig didn't leave Benares University just because he was> tired of the professor "blithely expounding on the illusory nature of the> world" (as you state in your paper) but rather because of the professor's> more controversial statement that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and> Nagasaki (and the carnage they created) was illusory. The full quote from> ZMM (Chapter 12) reads:> > "But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was blithely> expounding on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed
the fiftieth> time and Phædrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that> the atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory.> The professor smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange."> > "Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been> correct, but for Phædrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly> and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings that> answer was hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave> up."> > Matt:> Okay, this is exactly what I said in my paper: "Pirsig goes to Benares Hindu> University and just gets up and leaves because he was tired of the> philosophy professor 'blithely expounding on the illusory nature of the> world.'" The first thing to notice is that I didn't say Pirsig gets up and> leaves _just_ because he was tired of the professor. My "just" was inserted> to exhibit a sharp disjunction. Not a physical disjunction, as if, after> hearing the !
answer P
irsig immediately got up and left, but a mental> disjunction, the same kind that occurred to Pirsig while he was sitting> listening to the Chairman talk about the Phaedrus. Pirsig physically may> have been in the room, but he may as well have not been because his mind was> gone someplace else. That's why we get to the exchange and, immediately> following his short explanation of the inadequacies of the answer, he> leaves.> > That line was simply there to sum up succinctly his experience with that> teacher. Apparently you're taking issue with it, but I can't see why.> Pirsig's in the room listening to the Professor. Pirsig is obviously upset> by the material the Professor is lecturing on. The words "blithely> expounding" coupled with "for what seemed the fiftieth time" clearly convey> Pirsig's displeasure over the lesson, "the illusory nature of the world."> "Blithely" conveys a light-minded demeanor as if nothing he was saying> really mattered, "expounding" conveys a bit of pretentiousness, and "for> wh
at seemed the fiftieth time" conveys the fact that apparently that lesson> was all the professor, and consequently Eastern philosophy (at this point in> the story), had to offer. Pirsig's "asks coldly" not only conveys the> inadequacy of what he is hearing, but the severity and reality of what he's> about to say over and against the "blithely expounded" lesson the Professor> keeps going on about. The Professor "smiles," again signaling that the> Professor is remaining light-hearted and unserious, and takes Pirsig's> offered nettle and says essentially, "Yes, the death and destruction and> cruelty and pain and suffering of the nuclear attack on Japan, and war in> general for that matter, are all an illusion."> > Now, your dispute of my reading is that I say that Pirsig left "just because> he was tired of the professor 'blithely expounding on the illusory nature of> the world,'" (which I have already said is a misleading way of> characterizing what I said) but instead its "because of the professor's m!
ore> con
troversial statement that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and> Nagasaki (and the carnage they created) was illusory." And you even> helpfully quoted the whole selection. But I don't see the dispute. Pirsig> was already upset before he got the answer from the Professor. The> "blithely expounded" "illusory nature of the world" is what obviously> prompted Pirsig to ask his question. Pirsig's question ("was [it] believed> that the atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were> illusory?") was clearly constructed in response to the Professor's blithe> expositions, and constructed with the purpose of eliciting whether there> really was anything here in India worth waiting for (i.e. hearing more of> the Professor's lectures) or whether it was a waste of time searching> Eastern philosophy for the answers to his questions (since saying it was> "all illusory" didn't work for him). Pirsig got his answer and left. Now,> true, the answer is what immediately preceded him leaving, but the prompt
> for the question (to which the answer followed) was "the illusory nature of> the world," not to mention that things being "illusory" was clearly at issue> in the question, and the carnage being "illusory" is, even by your reading,> what sent him on his merry way.> > So what did I get wrong? Why couldn't I sum up the encounter with what I> said instead of the above expanded close reading of the section, neither of> which, as far as I can see, contradict each other, your reading, or Pirsig's> text?> > And if that's how you dispute the rest of my reading of Pirsig, you have> some more explaining to do.> > continued....> > Matt> > _________________________________________________________________> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee(r)> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963> > 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_dis
cuss/summary.html> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html> >
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 - 18:13:09 BST