From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 00:36:29 GMT
Squonk,
Fatal? Um, no. Actually, I didn't reply because most of the time you
ignore my replies and simply refer to them as low quality. But, in the
interests of striking up a worthwhile dialogue, I shall take you responses
seriously, even though you apparently don't repay the courtesy.
Matt said:
But if you wanted one example of what I think I may have helpfully pointed
out to some people, it is that Quality is not an essence. It is an
anti-essence.
Sq: 1. Essences belong in a substance based metaphysics. The MoQ is not a
substance based metaphysics.
Matt:
Great point. Thank God I agreed with it. Oh wait, you really hate all
that God-talk. Let me rephrase: Thank goodness I agreed with it.
Matt said:
The thought following from that is that, if metaphysics is
the search for essences, then we should stop doing metaphysics because we
will never find any essences.
Sq: 2. If is a big word. Back in the world of the MoQ, which, if you will
forgive me treading dangerously close to the crumbling edge of the obvious,
is an appropriate concern of mine, and i quote: "MOQ.org exists to provide
a forum for discussion and study of the Metaphysics of Quality as proposed
by Robert M Pirsig in his books Lila: An Inquiry into Morals and Zen and
the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" because that's the name of the forum.
Matt:
Maybe this is why I use alot of religious metaphors when refering to some
adherents and readers of the MoQ. In the negative sense of "religious"
that conflates it with "dogmatic" and "fundamentalist" (something I don't
normally indulge in), in the world of the MoQ that Squonk dwells in,
apparently we are never allowed to disagree with Pirsig.
But, to state more explicitly where I disagree with Pirsig, I disagree in
his choice of the word "metaphysics" to describe what he is doing. In the
sense of metaphysics that I prefer, and that I consider more useful,
metaphysics is what Pirsig is destroying in his attacks on SOM. What is
left is more appropriately called "philosophy" in the wide sense that
Pirsig uses when he describes Lincoln as his favorite philosopher (see his
"Letter to the Lila Squad"). I have argued quite long about this, and
quite recently, so I hesitate to go back into it. (See the "Pirsig, the
MoQ, and SOM" from Oct, particularly Wim's replies. The recent flame up of
this debate was in the "Nazis and Pragmatism" thread, starting with my 2/11
7:30 post. I said a few short dogmatic things about not using
"metaphysics" to describe what Pirsig's up to and Scott replied with his
list of reasons for wanting to support the continued use of metaphysics.)
Sq: 3. Static patterns evolve towards DQ. DQ does not evolve. Experience
composed of static patterns evolves, but DQ is unpatterned.
Matt:
That's one interpretation. I would choose not to hypostatize DQ by saying
that it does not evolve. By combining "Static patterns evolve towards DQ"
with "DQ does not evolve" you come dangerously close to interpreting DQ
like a Hegelian Absolute. Hegel had a historico-dialectical system like
Pirsig's, but he put Absolute Spirit as the end point. This seem like a
needless invocation of essence to pragmatists. The only purpose I see in
this is that way we can compare our current practices with some absolute.
I would interpret DQ as fluid. Static patterns evolve and we call it when
they evolve "Dynamic Quality."
Either way, I don't see how your interpretation differs all that much from
mine and I certainly don't see how it could be fatal.
Matt:
Isn't that what Pirsig's doing when he constructs
SOM and compares the MoQ to it?
Isn't SOM just the picture Pirsig's drawn
out of the materials supplied by the books he's read, like Kant and Boas?
Isn't he just doing literary criticism when he does that?
Sq: 4. No. There are patterns of thinking that are so abstract they move
beyond literature. These patterns may be embedded in literature, they may
appear in metaphor, but the abstractions are not within the purview of
ordinary culture. Even then, they may be questioned on higher levels - the
levels Quality appears as Pirsig first saw it. SoM is a construction along
the way, but its not Pirsig's construction as such; its too deep. Your
mucking about doesn't go near.
Matt:
I'm not sure at all what you point is here, nor how it could be fatal. The
point of my rhetorical questions was to draw some very plausible
similarities between what I and everybody else does and what Pirsig does.
As far as I can see you've simply redescribed Pirsig's answers, not refuted
mine. You make a hard distinction between literature and philosophy. I do
not and I don't think Pirsig in his better moments really does either.
Take his example of Lincoln as a philosopher. The talk about abstractions
is a little confusing. I'm not sure what you are saying. But I will say
this, pragmatists usually refrain from excessive abstractions, or at least
taking these abstractions as somehow more real then our experiences.
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 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 00:40:00 GMT