Re: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?

From: Matthew Stone (mattstone_2000@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 13:58:45 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "MD Life after death?"

    Platt,

    > PH:
    > Foucault makes a judgment if, as you say, "He
    > accepts that a plant is
    > as it seems visually." Pirsig makes a different
    > judgment. He says a
    > plant is not as it seems visually, but is a pattern
    > of moral value left
    > behind by the force of DQ. Judgments about the
    > nature of reality, about
    > what "is" and "is not," are based on fundamental
    > metaphysical
    > premises which are always judgment calls. If you
    > claim Foucault makes
    > no judgments, how can he (or you or me) make a
    > judgment that what he
    > says is right?

    Ok, so you can take it to the level that Foucault's
    primary perceptive capacity is a system of judgement.
    But to what extent does this devalue his work? Are
    you saying his appreciation of the relativity of
    thought means he cannot think? That he cannot posit
    ideas that, whilst recognising their own relativity,
    are of great insight?

    > PH:
    > So logic and math are formal but not "substantive"
    > or real. Is that your
    > position?

    No, it is that *what* we think can be relative and
    contingent, but *how* we think can, in some
    circumstances be taken as ultimately verifiable, e.g.
    maths.

    > MS:
    > > When has Pirsig 'persuasively argued' against
    > Eurpoean
    > > Deconstructivism? Or postmodernism in general,
    > for
    > > that matter?
    >
    > PH:
    > The entire MOQ as presented in Lila is an argument
    > against
    > postmodernism if postmodern posits, as you point
    > out, that thoughts
    > are illusions. In the MOQ, thoughts are "real as
    > rocks" intellectual
    > patterns.

    Thoughts are illusionary in the sense that they give
    the impression they are a pure engagement with
    reality, whereas they are based on all sorts of
    underlying factors and limitations that we don't know,
    e.g. Foucault's example of the circularity between the
    subject and the object, that doesn't analyse itself.
    This is just as 'real' as Pirsig's intellectual
    patterns. I think the best definition of postmodernism
    is the realisation that thought is relative, and that
    thought has the ability to turn back on itself and
    scrutinise itself. Pirsig does this consistently.

    > PH:
    > So something has to have "material presence" to be
    > real? Sounds to
    > me like your boy Foucault is just another SOM type
    > who buys into
    > good, old fashioned science-style metaphysics. As
    > Pirsig describes the
    > SOM outlook:
    >
    > "Subject-object science is only concerned with
    > facts. Morals have no
    > objective reality. You can look through a microscope
    > or telescope or
    > oscilloscope for the rest of your life and you will
    > never find a single
    > moral. There aren't any there. They are all in your
    > head. They exist only
    > in your imagination." (22)
    >
    > Not only do you agree that morals are products of
    > imagination but you
    > go even further and say thoughts are imaginary, too.
    > In direct
    > contradiction, Pirsig says thoughts are real
    > "intellectual patterns," and
    > morals not only exist, but are the "whole thing."
    > (13)

    Again I would like to reiterate that I never said that
    morals or thought don't exist, only that they are
    illusions (perceptions and customs masquerading as
    universal truths). But I see what you are saying -
    that Pirsig conceives of a moral not as 'in your
    head', as in SOM, but as a component of value just the
    same as the magnet-iron filings relationship. But
    this is really why I questioned Pirsig's postmodernism
    in my first post on this thread: he reintrodcues
    intellectual patterns. And if you contend that Pirsig
    is not postmodern at all, what do you make of his idea
    of the relativity and interchangeability of
    metaphysics? If this is not postmodern, is it then
    'modern'? In what sense?

    Matt.

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Everything you'll ever need on one web page
    from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
    http://uk.my.yahoo.com

    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 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 13:59:41 GMT