From: bahna@rpi.edu
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 19:39:25 GMT
Squank, Matt, and all:
I must say I am puzzled by Squank’s reaction to Matt’s project. His
review of Matt’s “Confessions” essay, like his recent related posts
directed at Matt was neither illuminating nor coherent. He has an obvious
negative emotional reaction to Matt’s style and rather than engage Matt in
a respectful debate, he has preferred to sling insults and misinterpret
Matt’s intentions.
Squank fancies himself an artist and has an intense dislike of
intellectual arguments that are aimed above his level of understanding. He
thinks it is more useful to “ridicule” his imaginary adversaries in order
to “puncture the egos” of any philosopher attempting to interpret the MOQ
outside of the context developed by Pirsig within his two novels. He
thinks it is his duty to give such blasphemers the “heave ho” as he gave
John “Wilberbeastly” and "Cap’m Bo” earlier for similar offenses. The
offense being the audacity to feel worthy of interpreting, criticizing or
making additions to the MOQ as laid out by Pirsig. So, he feels it is time
for Matt to “leave off.”
In Squanks review and other posts he says,
“Quality is that from which we make judgements.”
“Quality comes first…”
“Quality is the aim of art.”
“Quality is in relationships.”
“Quality (Tao) is expressly undefined”
He faults Matt for not accepting these definitions/undefinitions and
for not following Pirsig in placing “Quality” at the foundation of all
“Reality.” He ends his review by suggesting “that more attention to
Quality would have been welcomed.” (for the record, a find command in Word
found the term quality 61 times in Matt’s confession essay.)
I don’t want to disparage Squank and call him an “ignoramos (sic),”
“a cheeky little Monkey,” “ridiculous,” or “a bit sad.” He seems a bit
overly sensitive to Matt’s project of interpreting Pirsig through Rorty,
but that is understandable. It is just disappointing that he is unable to
express his dissatisfaction to Matt’s essay in a more concise manner
without the insults. He has made a couple of attempts (one in the “About
Quality” thread and the other in his review), but each time his remarks
come up short.
First, let’s be honest about his review. He only makes it part way
through and sheds little light on where his disagreement with Matt is
grounded. When Matt makes an analogy, Squank immediately dismisses the
utility of the analogy with his objection based on principles. For
instance Matt begins his essay by comparing the MOQ to a religion. He
thinks this analogy is apt because both the MOQ and quality are grounded in
an absolute. They are each “foundational” and begin from something which
transcends reality. For religion, reality begins with is god, and in the
MOQ we start with quality. This analogy sets the table for Matt’s later
arguments in his essay.
Squank replies with a curt, “The MOQ is not a religion, it is an
intellectual postulate.” Fine, but a religion is also an intellectual
postulate. Squank wants to destroy Matt’s project with “fatal” objections
aimed at Matt’s analogies, but his remarks leave us with little insight
into where these fatalities reside. Squank also misreads Matt’s essay in
several places. When Matt say’s “At the time, I was currently in the phase
of Pirsig-acceptance where I was looking to ‘shore up’ Pirsig’s defenses
towards mainstream philosophy,” Squank interprets this to mean that the MOQ
defends “aspects of mainstream philosophy in order to shore itself up.”
The contrast is clear. Matt is trying to find support for Pirsig’s
antagonism towards mainstream philosophy through the pragmatic writings of
James as suggested by Pirsig and Squank gives the opposite interpretation
of Matt looking toward mainstream philosophy for support of Pirsig’s view.
Squank main point, which he gives no support for, is that Matt tries
to place “a large MOQ context within smaller contexts.” I think Squank has
made a nice little metaphor here, but he gives us no reason for believing
the MOQ is a larger context than Rorty’s, other than that he and Pirsig say
it is so.
Squank refuses to even entertain a possible reading of Pirsig through
pragmatists eyes. He completely misses the point of Matt’s essay. I think
he should go back and give it a fair reading. He should also read it from
beginning to end (including the footnotes) before offering us his review.
He could then begin his review with some thoughts that could convince his
audience that he, at least, understands the point the author of the essay
he is critiquing was trying to make. We are left with no such impression
with the review now posted on the webpage.
I appreciate the autobiographical framework in which Matt encases his
“confessions.” It reinforces his thesis of antiessentialism and his
rejection of the foundationalism. Where Squank say’s “Quality is…” or
“Reality is…”, Matt frames his argument in conversation searching for
useful and practical interpretations of Pirsig. Squank argues in absolutes
and wants to say that Pirsig is not an interpretation, but rather, “It is
how it is.” If one does not wish to begin with Quality, Squank feels one
is violating the terms of the charter for moq.org. In a post from his
thread, About Quality, Squank says:
"Back in the world of the MoQ, which, if you will forgive me for
treading dagerously 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...' because thats the name of the forum."
It is not clear to me, nor I think most of the other participants in
the discussion, how Matt's contributions have not fallen within the rules
set for the forum. Presumably, in Squank's world, MOQ.org would simply
exist for the ability to offer up quotes from Pirsigs two novels.
This difference in starting points for each of their arguments is
recognized by Matt, and he has patiently tried to point Squank’s and
other’s criticism toward this difference. It is a difference Squank will
not recognize and rather has decided to brush aside and call Matt wrong for
not putting quality behind all reality- from not beginning with Quality.
It is hard to believe any fruitful results can be expected from
discussions between Squank and Matt, but the recent convert of DMB to the
pragmatist view is a testament that one can eventually be persuaded to take
off their blinders and begin to see something in a new light and through a
new vocabulary. David's crediting of Rick for his direction toward Dewey
is commendable, but slights Matt’s contributions toward softening himself
up to the pragmatist view (although, I don’t think David will ever admit
this.)
So, Squank, I think there is still hope for you. Not hope for you to
be converted to the pragmatist interpretation, but rather a hope that some
day you can, at least, understand the argument being made.
Thanks,
Andy
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 09 2003 - 19:39:38 GMT