Re: MD Clearing up Bo's intellectual mess, Part II

From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 29 2005 - 23:10:03 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD MOQ in time and space"

    ...from Part I

    Pirsig says “the more he studied, the more convinced he became that no one
    had yet told the damage to this world that had resulted from out unconscious
    acceptance of their [the Greeks’] thought.” (Ch. 28, 358) This wets our
    appetite. Then he begins the build up, which starts with the “mythos over
    logos” section (an argument that Pirsig commandeers, but for which I don’t
    think he fully grasps the consequences). Here begins Bo’s narrative of the
    genesis of logos, intellectual patterns, the SOM, the mind/matter dualism,
    etc. Pirsig tells us that in Greek cultures “one invariably finds a strong
    subject-object differentiation because the grammar of the old Greek mythos
    presumed a sharp natural division of subjects and predicates.” (359) There
    you have it, the subject/object, mind/matter distinction built by—wait a
    second. What? “In cultures such as the Chinese, where subject-predicate
    relationships are not rigidly defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding
    absence of rigid subject-object philosophy.” Subjects and predicates don’t
    sound like mind and matter to me. What could be the (obviously vastly
    underdeveloped) connection? But, more importantly, is that connection
    important? Why would Pirsig leave something like that so horrendously
    underdeveloped, just kinda’ throw it out there and move on? I think its
    exactly because he _is_ moving on. I think that paragraph marks a shifting
    of topics. Suddenly, and quite inexplicably, Pirsig has shifted to language
    use, rather than talk about mind and matter.

    I think the topic shift is cemented in the very next two sentences: “One
    finds that in the Judeo-Christian culture, in which the Old Testament ‘Word’
    had an intrinsic sacredness of its own, men are willing to sacrifice and
    live by and die for words. In this culture, a court of law can ask a
    witness to tell ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so
    help me God,’ and expect the truth to be told.” (359) If we look at this as
    a shift in topics, we will be less surprised when we reach Pirsig’s
    revelation of our age’s spiritual crisis: “Reason was to be subordinate,
    logically, to Quality, and he was sure he would find the cause of its not
    being so back among the ancient Greeks, whose mythos had endowed our culture
    with the tendency underlying all the evil of our technology, the
    tendency”--wait for it--“_to do what is ‘reasonable’ even when it isn’t any
    good_.” (Ch. 29, 368) Pirsig italicizes that whole last part, just so we
    don’t miss it. But if, as a reader, you had subjects and objects,
    specifically mind and matter, on the brain, you’d be totally thrown.
    “Reason and Quality had become separated and in conflict with each other and
    Quality had been forced under and reason made supreme somewhere back then.”
    (368) Reason? But I thought we were talking about subjectivity and
    objectivity, mind and matter?

    The reason nobody is caught off guard by this, Bo no less than anyone else,
    is because the structure of the narrative leads us inexorably to it. The
    narrative is structured so that we slowly forget about that whole thing
    about mind and matter, and instead start focusing on the bigger culprit:
    “the desiccating lifeless voice of dualistic reason.” (370)

    I now want to bridge to my second question: “Does the mind/matter dualism
    really start with Socrates?” Does that dualism start with Greek culture,
    specifically Greek philosophical culture? I don’t think it does. The first
    place I’ll begin to refute the idea is with Pirsig, to continue to solidify
    the idea that not even Pirsig thinks the mind/matter dualism central.
    Pirsig begins his scattered narrative about the genesis of what he later
    calls the intellectual level with the piece above about subject-object
    differentiation, which is subtly transposed to grammar, a subject-predicate
    distinction, thus beginning our shift. The shift is followed through when
    Pirsig expands his narrative later in Ch. 29 on p. 381. “Early Greek
    philosophy represented the first conscious search for what was imperishable
    in the affairs of men.” The rest of paragraph says nothing about mind and
    matter before it ends with “This consciousness, which had never existed
    anywhere before in the world, spelled a whole new level of transcendence for
    the Greek civilization.” What’s important is the new “consciousness,” the
    search for “what was imperishable in the affairs of men.”

    Mind and matter do come up. In Pirsig’s narrative, he says that for Greek
    philosophers “permanence was no longer the exclusive domain of the Immortal
    Gods. It was also to be found within Immortal Principles….” (382) Pirsig
    then runs down a short, pedantic list of some examples. He mentions that
    the Pythagoreans were “the first to see the Immortal Principle as something
    nonmaterial.” He ends with “Anaxagoras was the first to identify the One as
    _nous_, meaning ‘mind.’ ” I think these are dropped to remind us of our
    former travels, but Pirsig himself doesn’t connect the dots. All he does
    add, ever so subtly is, a paragraph later, “Anaxagoras and Parmenides had a
    listener named Socrates who carried their ideas into full fruition.” (382)
    Parmenides is often linked as Socrates’ direct predecessor, if for no other
    reason than Plato wrote a dialogue by that name fictionalizing their
    encounter. But Anaxagoras, not so much. There are a tiny few allusions
    made (favorably) by Plato about Anaxagoras, but not a lot else. His
    placement here is entirely to remind us of the importance of “mind.” Which
    Pirsig promptly proceeds to finger explicitly:

    ...continued in Part III

    _________________________________________________________________
    Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
    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_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 Jun 30 2005 - 00:40:56 BST