From: bahna@rpi.edu
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 12:16:21 GMT
David,
Forgive me for answering for Matt EE, but your not even trying to
understand him. The first time I read ZMM, I was engrossed in his story,
but I became confused when he discussed philosophy. I hurried through many
sections to get back to his story about Phaedrus, the motorcyle, Chris and
their trip. I became confused with much of Pirsig's terminology, but it
did not detract from the story. Later, with some background, the fog was
lifted on the philophy parts and I was able to pull useful aspects from
these portions of ZMM as well.
Matt describes his first encounters of Rorty with confusion, because he
lacked the terminology to understand Rorty at the time. Rorty does not
present his views in the framework of a novel, so it lacks the immediate
pull as Pirsig. Like "Hero with a Thousand Faces," might put off the
uninitiated reader of Campbell. But, in time, Matt describes his grasp of
Rorty's terminology over time.
To take some of your objections to Matt's thesis point by point. Lets
begin with your first example on the "Capernican Inversion."
Matt wrote:
He's here echoing Kant when Kant suggested that he was performing a
Copernican inversion.6 The problem as Rorty sees it is that an inversion,
be it Pirsig's inversion of SOM, Kant's inversion of Cartesian
epistemology, Nietzsche's inversion of Platonism, or de Man's inversion of
the "metaphysics of presence," still plays by the same rules as what was
inverted.
DMB continues:
To understand just these two sentences one would have to know quite alot
about Kant, Copernicus, Rorty, Descartes, Nietzche, Plato and de Man. One
would have to know what a Copernican inversion is, what SOM is, what
Cartesian epistemology is, how Nietzche inverted Plato, how de Man inverted
the 'metaphysics of presence is and what sort of 'rules' he refering to.
Not to mention that fact that all of this is a description of 'the problem'
as Rorty sees it. Whew! And that's just a single assertion! Its just two
sentences. I find this to be pretty much incomprehensible. I'd love to
discuss the substance of the issues rather than just the style of
presentation, but I can't because I have no idea what the substance is. I
have no idea what the problem is. Maybe its all my fault. Maybe I'm just
too stupid or ignorant. Maybe. But I doubt it.
Andy says:
No you are not too stupid or ignorant, but in this case lazy. If you will
notice in the essay Matt has a footnote. You do not need to "to know quite
alot about Kant, Copernicus, Rorty, Descartes, Nietzche, Plato and de Man,"
but rather you only need to read the footnote to clear up your confusion.
DMB continues:
Matt begins his criticism with the premise that the MOQ is like religion.
This happens right away, in the second sentence. I almost never agree with
Squonk and in fact find him only slightly more comprehensible than Matt,
but on this point we agree. I think the MOQ is like religion only in the
same way that cars are like horses. Both can be used to go somewhere. On
the other hand, machines and animals have far more differences than
similarities and so such an analogy strikes me as extremely misleading. And
besides that, Pirsig devotes huge chunks of Lila describing how and why
religion is UNLIKE philosophy. In other words, I think Matt gets off on the
wrong foot at the very begining of the race and so hasn't a prayer of
crossing the finish line.
Andy says:
Perhaps this was not the proper way to begin his essay. Religion has too
many strong emotions attached to the word. This is something Squank also
has a strong reaction to. But it is only an analogy which he begins his
essay with, it hardly destroys the main thrust of Matt's argument.
DMB continues:
This quote seems to make it pretty clear that Aristotle is the conjuror
of substance, and that SOM begins there, but Matt contradicts this....
From Matt's essay:
Pirsig follows Rorty in fingering Plato for causing many of the apparent
problems of philosophy.8 However, as soon as he finishes condemning Plato
for creating SOM, he suggests that what's really real is Quality.
Andy says:
Again notice the footnote. (8). I don't have the same edition of ZMM as
Matt, but he has provided us with a citation from ZMM to back up his claim.
Perhaps Matt can provide us the direct quote.
DMB continues:
Since Rorty is basically hostile to metaphysics and is light years away
from mysticism, how in the world can he shed any light on Pirsig's mystical
metaphysics? It just seems, like your essay, doomed from the start.
Andy says:
Come on, you didn't get any farther in the essay than Squank got. Read the
whole thing with an open mind a some of the same effort you bring to your
readings of Pirsig, Wilfer and Campbell. I don't think this is too much to
ask. I think that, like Squank, you have some sort of unexplained negative
emotional reaction to Matt's style. Here is how it appears to me. I read
your reactions to Matt essay and his philosophical arguments with you in a
certain light. Now granted, I do have a over heated imaginations, but I
imagine these thoughts running through your head as you hastily type out
your responses to Matt on your keyboard. It is amazing, but I don't see
you having the same thoughts when you compose responses to others, so I can
only attribute it to an emotional reaction.
Andy imagining David's thoughts while typing a post to Matt EE:
"All right, Matt, you little squirt. You weren't even in diapers, when I
was exploring the mystical and spiritial nature of reality. You think you
can figure all this out before I do? I'll tell you a thing or two. Hell,
I don't even understand what you are saying. And what the hell is an
enraged endorphin. You think you are clever? I will grant you, that you
are intelligent, but your intellegince will get you no where without
experience and I have experience. SO you had better listen to me when I
say Rorty is a fool and your ideas are incoherent. THey are confusing. No
one will understand them. Go out and live a life like I did when I was
your age and then come back and tell me you know a thing or two about
Rorty. Until then you are just a little pipsqueak. You are like Kidd
Johnny Lang singing the blues. Just a white boy from North dakota ripping
all of us real bluesmen off, by not paying your dues. So either, engage me
on my terms and sit at my feet to learn the proper way to read Pirsig or go
away for awhile and gain some experience."
Thats how it sounds to me
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 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 12:17:56 GMT