From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Thu May 19 2005 - 04:12:35 BST
Matt, Mark and all:
Matt Kundert said: ....................................The way I see the
fight, DMB and I are both holding a single Pirsig stick, one on each side,
and both sides are pointed. In the fight, we try and push the stick into
the other guys belly. The end of the stick that's sticking into my belly is
the "Platonist point" and the end of the stick in DMB's is the "pragmatist
point." (I'm pretty sure DMB would want to redescribe the names of the
points, but I think the names, currently, are irrelevant to the analogy I'm
developing, as we'll see in a moment.)
dmb says:
Poking each other with sticks? Sure, its a fun analogy until somebody puts
an eye out. Or points out the creepy Freudian quality of it. But I'm so
flattered that you named a thread after me that I'll just let that go
because...
There's another reason I don't like your description. I've only read Part I
so far and may have to take this part back, but my perspective doesn't
appear in your description of the battle at all. I'm a Platonist? Huh? As I
understand it, the MOQ is a form of philosopical mysticism, a kind of
American Buddhism. And, yes, I think this is so central and essential to the
MOQ that I'm offended by interpretations that leave it out. I think our
battle is about that. I think that pragmatism without that is nihilistic and
is very much part of the problem that the MOQ seeks to cure. As I understand
it, your view is wildly at odds with the heart of the MOQ. If Plato has
anything to do with that, it would be news to me.
Matt continued: ..................................... and I think Pirsig's
philosophy (basically) two incompatible parts (which is why, in my account,
I'm poking him with the "pragmatist point," because when I want to beat back
Platonism I use Pirsig's pragmatist passages, and DMB pokes me with the
"Platonist point," because when he wants to beat back my nihilism, DMB uses
Pirsig's Platonist passages).
dmb says:
You talk as if the distinction between platonists and pragmatists were
something important, but I just can't get excited about it. Sorry. I think
that whole debate is very far away from what Pirsig is doing. I think you've
interpreted the history of philosophy in a way that leaves mysticism
entirely out of the picture. Its not an option for you, so that when I press
the issue you call me a Platonist. Trust me, Rorty is not going to help you
understand philosophical mysticism. Quite the opposite. He's on a different
planet. I think that interpreting the MOQ through his lens is wrong in many
ways. And yes, to be honest, I think it shows that you don't get it. I'd
guess its one of those things you dismissed before ever really seeing it,
probably because so few contemporary philosophers can take mysticism
seriously.
Matt continued:
... in DMB's perception there is no fight over Pirsig, just the
philosophical beatings. ..._And_, despite the fact that the "DMB's
perception" leaves out any mention of a struggle over interpreting Pirsig,
DMB obviously does acknowledge that we are both fighting over the correct
interpretation of Pirsig. This is why I think using the full description of
the two different, conflicting perceptions of an analogized fight between
DMB and I may be a description of our conflict that DMB and I can agree on.
dmb says:
Huh? Of course we're fighting over interpretations. But I'm sincerely
baffled and perplexed. How can you reject so much of the MOQ and still
expect to have the correct interpretation? This is the source of my
incredulity. This is behind the joke that your metaphysics of quality only
leaves out the metaphysics and the quality. And since then, you've been
re-arranging and or denying the levels. You want to erase everything but the
pragmatism and then you want to turn up the volume on the the pragmatic
parts. This is the source of my motorcylce analogy, wherein you attempt to
improve it by removing the engine. This is why I called you a parts-smasher
and an intellectual vandal. This is the source of my "that's stupid"
attitude. From my perspective, it should be obvious to any MOQer that the
rejection or dismissal of these aspects of the MOQ is an epic blunder. Its
my biggest complaint and yet it goes unmentioned in your loooooong
descriptions. That's stupid.
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 : Thu May 19 2005 - 04:19:58 BST