From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 03:36:02 BST
Bo,
Matt said:
This [when we speak about MOQ's intellectual level we speak about SOM] is
where you have a _lot_ more interpretive work to do. One, you have to link
ZMM's boogey-man with Lila's (spotty) description of the emergence in Greece
(and then with his post-Lila work). I don't think it is as easy as it
seems, and you've simply taken this for granted.
Bo said:
Acceptance of 1 and 2 makes 3 inevitable!
Matt:
No, no it doesn't. I mean, would you seriously argue that democracy and
philosophy are the same thing because they arose in Greece at the same time?
No, you wouldn't (though, I'm beginning to think you might). It only
makes it inevitable under certain construals of the terms you are using.
The problem is you are absolutely refusing to do the work needed to
establish any of the possibly interesting things you might have to say. It
is truly bizarre from someone so vehement in their belief that they are the
way. You can't just say, "I have the Truth! I have the Truth!" over and
over again and expect intelligent people to believe you.
Matt said:
Three, what _you_ mean by "SOM" is not what everybody else seems to mean by
"SOM" (so you can't just assume that we'll all agree to that without
addressing varied uses) and, as I argued, is not what _Pirsig_ means by
"SOM" as the name for his boogey-man in ZMM. So you need a better argument
for drawing out your version of SOM from Pirsig.
Bo said:
What is meant by SOM is clear, and I see no need for it being drawn into
your meatgrind ;-). But again, if point 1 and 2 are accepted 3 follows
logically.
Matt:
I'm beginning to think you didn't even read my interpretation. You're
basically conceding the field to me, Bo. First, what _you_ mean by SOM is
not clear. You make a list (just a slew of dualisms), but if the list is
longer than one item (which it is), you've got a lot more work to do in
linking all of those items indelibly together. Further, what is meant by
SOM in ZMM is not clear (as I argued). A) Pirsig doesn't use the term, so
drawing conclusions will be a little more difficult than supposed. B) If we
are to believe that anything stands at the heart of SOM based on ZMM, it is
not any of the dualisms you listed, but the dichotomy between appearance and
reality. That's my argument, and I wrote out what I think is a fairly
persuasive sketch of that interpretation. As it is, you (or anyone else if
they are so inclined) haven't stepped up to rebut that interpretation. And
you've basically said that you won't. Because it is "clear." Well, Bo, how
is it clear? To establish how clear it is, you might want to wield some
arguments and interpreations rather than just repeating, over and over
again, "It's clear! It's clear!"
Bo off-handedly commented:
I don't think Judaism ("the old books of the Bible" as Pirsig says) has any
reference to soul, because it has no (what Pirsig in the letter calls)
intellectual content.
Matt:
That's possibly the most specious line of reasoning I've ever seen. Hey,
maybe Ancient Hebrew doesn't have a word like "soul," but I doubt its
because Judaism doesn't have any intellectual content (which would only true
by definition, because one has defined "intellect" in a way that makes it
arise in Greece--like Pirsig does, for instance).
Matt:
One, we've never said that there is nothing but intellect. You've never
established that we've been saying that. You've never done the work of
engaging us enough to gain a refined understanding of either of our's
intentions and why we talk the way we do.
Bo said:
Firstly. The Pirsig quote reveals something important. To him a metaphysics
is philosophy and in it there are no way to get beyond intellect. As a Zen
monk however he is the true Phaedrus again who sees that the MOQ has
transcended intellect by making it a static level of its own.
If you Matt "never said that there is nothing but intellect" it goes against
your claim that the MOQ must be an intellectual pattern. If it - and all
statements about reality - is "in" intellect, then everything is intellect.
Matt:
I'm gonna' play a little game. Let's see how much Bo really agrees with
Pirsig. During the S/O Dilemma, Pirsig describes three dialectical
maneuvers: choose option 1, choose option 2, or reject the options.
(Technically, the third maneuver isn't a _dialectical_ choice, but that's
besides the point right now.) So, is Quality in the Subject? Nah. Is it
in the Object? Nah. Pirsig rejects the dualism. (Which is why people view
your interpretation, Bo, as retrogressive, not progressive.) See how that
works? And you seem to think Pirsig's right here. So, why don't I get that
maneuver? You never even address the implications of the maneuver. Its as
if you aren't even seeing it. All you do is beg the question in your favor
without really explaining why. How is it you beg the question, you ask?
Because you're slipping in your definition of the MoQ at the moment of
critique. Everytime we explain our definition (as opposed to yours) you
freak, "The MoQ is an intellectual pattern? Oh God, that means everything
is an intellectual pattern!" But that's a sleight-of-hand trick. We define
the MoQ as "intellectual patterns." You define the MoQ as "Reality." The
only way we could be construed as saying that everything is intellectual
patterns is if we used _your_ definition of the MoQ at the moment of
inference--as Reality. But if we did that, we'd be using _your_ definition,
not ours. We'd no longer be talking about anything that could be associated
with us.
The reason it appears to you that I think that there is nothing but
intellect is because you think the MoQ is reality itself. But you never
untied what that means in the face of my questions from a while ago. You
just suddenly announced that I understood what was going on. I kept saying
I'm not so sure I do, and it certainly appears that I don't understand the
consequences which would be why I find your philosophical behavior
bewildering. I tried untying what you mean in the post entitled "Matt's
Critique of the SOL--conclusion?" from June 22. At that point, you had
already started to disengage, saying "You've understood me!," so I tried to
tie the conversation up with the way I understand you. You never said
anything, but apparently I'm wrong. So what the hell do you mean when you
say that the MoQ is reality?
The difficulty of this whole bizarre conversation is that early on you
retitled the thread "Matt's Critque of the SOL." But very quickly you
stopped addressing any of my criticisms and just started parroting "You
understand! You understand!" Suddenly, my critique is part of my "meat
grinding factory." Thing is, as far as I can tell, and you haven't said a
peep to persuade me otherwise (let alone persuade anyone else), my factory
is beating the hell out of your philosophy.
Here's another attempt at understanding you:
If the MoQ is Reality, then the MoQ is Quality.
If the MoQ is Quality, then when people talk about Quality, they are giving
opinions about the MoQ (that's what you said you were doing on June 21).
If we are giving opinions about the MoQ on the MD, then Pirsig was giving
opinions about the MoQ in Lila.
If Pirsig was giving opinions about the MoQ in Lila, then when he presented
a philosophical system called the "Metaphysics of Quality," he was making a
systematic presentation of his opinions about Reality--about the MoQ.
So, in the end, we have the "Metaphysics of Quality," which is Pirsig's
assemblage of opinions about Reality, and the Metaphysics of Quality, which
is Reality.
Without commmenting on how silly that looks, I will simply ask a question:
If that's what you mean, how is it Paul and I are subjectivists, saying
everything is intellect, when all we are talking about is the "Metaphysics
of Quality," the same as you? It would appear that if we are subjectivists,
so are you. And further, it would also appear that the whole brouhaha is
based on _your_ confusion over _your_ ambiguous terms because _you_
equivocate between the "Metaphysics of Quality" and the Metaphysics of
Quality. Paul and I understand what we are doing; do you know what you're
doing?
Bo said:
Where was Einstein standing with respect to his claim that everything is
relative? I've seen doubts about his theory based on this: When speaking
about warped space and time it must necessarily be compared to straight ones
...etc. but physicist couldn't care less. Relativity WORKS!
Matt:
Na, nah--you don't get to be a pragamtist. No pragmatism for you. If you
condemn everyone else for being subjectivists/idealists (despite the fact
that it works, as Pirsig himself says), then you don't get to sidestep the
issue. _You_ brought it up, you are the one demanding that everyone do
epistemology with all your talk about subjects and objects, subjectivity and
objectivity. If you want SOM, you gotta' have an epistemology, and that
means you can't have pragmatist answers because those are
anti-epistemological.
Bo said:
The MOQ is somehow "out of intellect" (no level though!) in the same sense
that all levels are out of the former.
Matt:
Hmm, that really doesn't slice bread. You can't simply deny the consquences
of a claim when they appear. You have to explain why they don't appear. If
the MoQ is "out of intellect" in the _same_ sense as the other levels, then
that means the MoQ _is_ a fifth level. The sense has to be _different_, a
sense we haven't as yet heard.
Bo said:
The MOQ is not static nor is it dynamic, it is the Quality Reality! The
said lantern I've been waving since God knows when..
Matt:
Ah, excellent: an example of equivocation. The MoQ is the Quality Reality.
_That's_ the lantern you've been waving at us. But, by your understanding,
it isn't. One can't wave Reality at other people. Reality is what we are
in, already and always in touch with (as Pirsig taught us). The lantern has
to be your opinions about Reality. You see how you equivocate in the space
of two sentences? First sentence, MoQ. Second sentence, "MoQ."
Matt said:
You want to claim that Pirsig's original insight is that the intellect is
the S/O dualism. I claimed that you were wrong (and provided a reading of
his text to support my claim). Pirsig never had that insight in ZMM.
Bo said:
No? Just look at the diagram of the tentative MOQ in ZMM. Admittedly the
Romatic/Classic didn't become the final divide (it rather corresponds to the
social and intellectual levels) but the fact that intellect is the S/O
source is just as valid.
Matt:
You really, honestly believe its as easy as that? Suddenly my
interpretation has been rebutted?
Bo, if you had read my interpretation, you'd know that it would take your
piece of evidence and spit it out as, "Pirsig's diagram is of the Modern
predicament, not the Ancient."
But let's be clear here, in case you ever do want to seriously forward your
own interpretation (rather than the half-assed way you've been doing it so
far): your full claim is "Intellect arose in Greece. SOM arose in Greece.
Therefore intellect is SOM." I argued that SOM didn't arise in Greece. The
subject-object metaphysics, which is encapsulated by the Subject-Object
Dilemma, arose _after_ whatever it is that happened in Greece--and Pirsig
knows it. Pirsig's primary target in ZMM wasn't SOM, but the "ghost of
Reason." Oh, for sure, they're tied together. But you are using a bad
textual reading of Pirsig (let alone the bad intellectual history, which is
what it is even if we found Pirsig agreeing with you) to support your
philosophical claims.
Bo said:
I say forgive my going so lightly over earlier posts, it's just that I'm
desperate not to be side-tracked from the core issue.
Matt:
What "core issue" could be more important than the truth of and betterness
of your interpretation?
Matt
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 : Sat Jul 09 2005 - 13:05:56 BST