RE: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2003 - 21:42:36 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD Making sense of it (levels)"

    MS:
    I am very interested in the way in which Pirsig fits
    into the postmodern direction of philosophy. I
    originallt thought him to be quite the pioneer,
    deconstructing the western episteme, showing the
    problems, the non-neutrality, the impurity of thought.
     But his reconstruction in Lila seems to undo the
    integrity of his original mandate. Specifically, the
    idea of the intellectual level seems to reintroduce
    the problematic notions of the self, of human
    rationality, of ideas, that fly in the face od the
    concerns about 'humanism' in philosophy that Foucault
    has warned us of, for example. I know he posits the
    MoQ as a mere alternative to the SOM, but doesn't
    Pirsig open himself to criticism here?

    DMB:
    I think its safe to say that Pirsig is post-modern in a broad sense. He's
    critical of modernity. Maybe it would be even better to say he's
    post-postmodern. I mean let's face it. We live in a post-modern world and
    those who are still attached to modernity and the enlightenment project are
    throwbacks to previous centuries. I can't speak specifically to Foucault's
    concerns, but it seems pretty clear that Pirsig's enemy is not the world of
    ideas or rationality itself, but is more specific than that. He's going
    after certain assumptions and the conclusions they lead to, but he's not
    rejecting philosophy or metaphysics in the way you seem to imagine. I mean,
    if de-construction is not followed by re-construction, then one is merely
    engaged in vandalism, not philosophy.

    MS:
    Can't the MoQ survive on only one level - the
    material? Aren't the other three levels mere
    extentions of the material, simply 'abstracting' the
    movement and structure of physical particles such as
    they make sense (e.g. the notion of an 'idea' in the
    human brain, in the intellectual level)? Thus, is not
    the introduction of an 'intellectual level' a
    dangerous move, tempting people into seeing people as
    'beings', with 'ideas', not purely patterns?

    DMB:
    No. The idea that minds are extensions of material brains is one of those
    SOM assumptions that Pirsig works to overcome. In the MOQ, human beings are
    concieved as a forest of static patterns. With any luck, this includes
    intellectual patterns.

    SM:
    The reason why the MoQ appealed to me in the first
    place is that it first seemed to remove problematic
    concepts such as the self and the truth and so on,
    from reality, and re-phrase it purely in terms of
    structure. But the more I think about the
    intellectual level, the less appealing it becomes.

    DMB:
    The MOQ appealed to you because it removes problematic concepts from
    reality? I'd say it solves some problems, but this is done by re-examining
    things like "self" and "truth", not just throwing them out the window. And
    the reason Pirsig has provided a conceptual structure, which includes such
    things as the intellectual level, is because, as he says, you can't have a
    metaphysics that consists of just one word. (Quality) That's where he left
    it in ZAMM and later saw how inadequate that is.

    Do me a favor. Explain to me how this wish to go back to an unarticulated
    world view is NOT just a big pile of anti-intellectual nihilism. Why would
    we be happy with a one-word philosophy? I was thrilled when Lila came out.
    For my tastes, ZAMM raised too many question that needed answers. I enjoyed
    it in many ways, but I couldn't help but think, "Yea? So? What does that
    mean?" I'm extremely suspicious of pomo's apparent hostility to the
    philosophical attempts to understand things. I think this is just what
    humans want to do and what they have always done. We're curious. We're
    explorers. We want to know. Our inability to achieve perfection in this, in
    my view, is an extremely weak reason to abandon philosophy. Besides,
    metaphysics is fun.

    Thanks.
    DMB

    PS Sorry about hijacking your thread with those posts about the politics of
    philosophy. Hopefully this response to your original thread starter will
    help to give it back.

    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 Mar 02 2003 - 21:42:52 GMT