From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 25 2005 - 23:14:33 GMT
Marsha,
Marsha said:
Your post feels like being asked to sort a huge pile of mixed seeds. I
don't feel up to the task, but I will give it a try. I'd like to know where
my contradictions might be.
...
Problems? Where do they come from?
Matt:
I think this is the biggest problem I have. Its tough to convince people to
be afraid of what they aren't afraid of. If you don't see any problems,
then I have to convince you that there are problems. Of course, on the
other hand, its not like I think philosophical problems are that big a deal.
I think the only people that lead slightly less happy lives because of
philosophical problems are philosophers. Other people just don't even have
any idea what you're talking about. So, if you don't want to play the game
of philosophy (which says "don't leave contradictions around"), then that's
perfectly fine. But the problems I'm trying to point out are problems only
_if_ you play the game.
My dialectical encounter had the purpose of putting someone who took the
position of the intial facet of DQ in an awkward pose, in a tough spot with
(I'd say impossible to overcome) problems. In your initial response to me
you only enunciated one of those facets, but for people who like Pirsig many
times the others are in the background so I just got all of them out there.
So for the moment I'll just concentrate on DQ-as-filter. It seems to me
that you didn't face up to the awkward position I created. You announce
that you like the filter/lens analogy in the face of my argument, but you
didn't answer the simple question posed.
Matt said:
How do you know you’ve become unlensed?
...
And even more striking, how do you know that Pirsig hasn’t just given you a
new lens to filter experience by making the distinction between
lensed/unlensed and showing you how to use it by examples? That when you
say, "It seems to me there are two realities experienced by humans," it
seems to be this way because of the lens you're seeing with?
Marsha said:
I think both lens and filter are good analogies because they both indicate
the interference between ourselves and what we are experiencing.
Matt:
How do you know that the entire idea that there is "interference between
ourselves and what we are experiencing" isn't a function of the lens you are
wearing? You think that the lens/filter analogy is good because you have an
antecedent sense that there is interference, and the lens/filter analogy
indicate it. But how do you know that the reason you _have_ that original
sense of interference that causes you to like the lens/filter analogy
_isn't_ a function of the lens you're wearing? If it _is_ a function, then
isn't that lens disposable for one that didn't suggest interference?
Marsha said:
You are having a direct experience when you are just doing, seeing,
accepting, reacting to the experience. You are not analyzing or comparing.
There's no manipulation by thoughts.
Matt:
Yeah, but how do you know that what you just described as the marks of
direct experience aren't marks because you were _taught_ to filter them that
way? (Actually, in this blip you seem to me to be equivocating between two
different senses of DQ that I distinguished at the end of the post. I don't
think that's a good idea, either.)
Marsha said:
Maybe the analogy that Pirsig writes is a higher quality lens, filtering
grid, or SQ. I have found that to be the case.
Matt:
Maybe. But how are you going to convince me that it is? You would do that
by showing how useful it is in an array of contexts. However, I'm trying to
point out one context that breeds a paradox, where the grid/lens analogy
doesn't work at all. You may be okay with living with paradox, but then
you've either just ignored a problem (as unimportant, which is bad for a
philosopher) or baptized it, making it a feature of reality. But baptizing
problems sets up a whole new array of problems.
In the end, though, I'm not sure that this dialogue is that important. Like
I said, philosophical problems aren't that important. They _can_ be to some
people, but I don't think they have world-historical importance to all
people (like, say, the problems of the Cold War did). I agree with you when
you say, "Every one of us will interpret and reinterpret within our comfort
level based on our experiences. That's what we do." Actually, in the end I
think its a view like that that eventually dismantles the idea that Pirsig
does a good job of ordering experience. But on this occasion, there doesn't
seem a lot I could do. If, as you say, its the case that "Maybe dividing DQ
would be helpful for you. It would add confusion for me," then you're not
vaguely afraid enough of the problems I see or doubtful enough or
uncomfortable enough with Pirsig's view to find the alternative view I'm
hocking worthwhile. And that's just what happens. I actually think
dialogue does very little most times in effecting massive changes in
viewpoint. It is usually something very random and very inexplicable, not
usually what the modern's call "rational." I doubt there is any way _to_
make change more "rational" in the sense Enlightenment philosophers meant
it. Its just a fact of life that one could be argumentatively defeated (and
who makes _that_ call, anyways?) and _still_ be unswayed, and in fact go on
with their lives quite happily. I even doubt that life _would_ be better if
a successful argument magically forced a change in opinion, as the
Enlightenment lovers of "rationality" wished. Something like that would be
more like the "might makes right" of the Middle Ages, except in the
intellectual arena. The cleverest (who are not always the most wise or
ethical) would rule over everyone else. Surely that doesn't sound like a
good idea?
Anyways, I hope some of the above clarifies what I think a philosophical
position like the one I see you taking needs to answer to.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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 : Fri Nov 25 2005 - 23:43:37 GMT