From: david buchanan (dmbuchanan@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Dec 03 2005 - 22:31:02 GMT
Matt and all language users:
dmb had said to matt:
Cheap trick. Here you're trying to spin a set of metaphysical assumptions
on the basis of one word. (The word 'capture' was taken from this sentence;
"Surely anyone can see the difference between an unknowable realm that can
never be experienced directly and an experience that can't be captured in
words?")
Matt replied:
...A lot of why I'm just not going to try very hard to converse with you is
because you have a conversational style that, well---let's say it just
doesn't work for me. For instance, saying that I'm involved in a cheap
trick by spinning out consequences from one word. Now, I don't know where
you've been, but my argument has never hinged on a single word. It's hinged
on a constellation of concepts that reinforce each other, like "capturing
experience" and "adequate to experience," not to mention the words Pirsig
uses. ...you then berrate me for construing "capturing" in a bad manner by
saying, "Its one thing to realize that our words don't simply reflect a
pregiven reality. Its quite another to say that language can't 'capture
anything' or that language shouldn't or can't agree with experience." ...
Now, if you understood me and agreed with me about representationalism, you
would not have said that. That all points to me that you don't know what I'm
up to yet, or that you _are_, protests aside, a representationalist....
dmb says:
First of all, I'm not saying that your argument hinges on one word. I'm
saying that you selected the word "capture" to construe my comment as if it
were an assertion of representationalism. I'm saying that this is a rather
petty form of criticism and that the meaning of my assertion has nothing to
do with representationalism, which makes it even weaker. And if you add the
context of all that I've been saying, the charge is really pretty absurd.
Both of my statements refer to the distinction between language and mystical
experience. Pirsig and the authors of the Guidebook make this same point
repeatedly. In Lila Pirsig says that mystics "share a common belief that the
fundamental nature of reality is outside language; that language splits
things up into parts while the true nature of reality is undivided."
Likewise the Guidebook says that mystics of both East and West "claim that
eventually one must let go of the activites of thought and imagination in
order to enter a region of consciousness that such symbolic activity cannot
reach." See? I was trying to say the same thing about these two categories
of experience. One doesn't have to be a Pirsigian to make this distinction
either. I mean, as I understand it, this is pretty much the definition of
philosophical mysticism no matter where you look, but its a point I've been
hammering because the MOQ's static/Dynamic split makes that same
distinction. That's what I've been trying to say.
Let me pose some questions here. What's the problem with asserting that
intellectual descriptions should make sense and agree with experience? Is
that representationalism? If so, how so?
See, I think it makes no sense to level charges of representationalism at a
guy who says, "the world has no existence whatsoever outside the human
imagination". As I understand it, the MOQ says there is no reality beyond
our experience, that our experience is all the reality we ever get. And
saying that some experience is beyond any fixed definitions, beyond language
and the rational mind, is only meant to make a distinction between one kind
of experience and another, not between language and reality, not between
appearance and reality, not between the noumenal and the phenomenal or
anything like that. I honestly don't see how this distinction between
non-rational apprehension and intellectual definitions can be taken as
representationalism. I mean, doesn't the representationalist need to assume
some version of SOM? Doesn't he need to assert that there is a reality
independent of experience to be represented in the first place? Does your
version of antirepresentationalism go so far as to have a philosophical
problem with the use of certain words like "capture". Are you REALLY saying
that certain terms and images have to be stricken from the conversation
because they represent representationalism?
Matt said:
...If we really agreed on antirepresentationalism, I think it'd be easier
for you to pick up my language and go, "Yeah, sure. You can put it that
way, too. That's all I really meant anyway. You're just seeing ghosts."
If that happened enough times on a number of issues, I'd tend to believe you
more about, say, our agreement on what being fully antirepresentational
looks and sounds like.
dmb says:
Right. If we agree as to what being fully antirepresentationalism looks and
sounds like, we'll have a visual and acoustic representation of
antirepresentationalism. See, that's the kind of cheap trick I'm talking
about. Since representationalism is common sense and appears everywhere in
our language, one can construe just about any assertion as being
representational. SOM is like that too. I don't think its very important to
be "fully antirepresetational". Not an axe I'm out to grind. Like I said, I
don't even see how this is relevant to the MOQ.
Matt said:
For me, the worst cheap trick of all is your suggestion that my arguments
are weak because I'm not attending to chapter and verse of Pirsig's texts.
dmb says:
That's not at all what I said. I think its weak to base your criticisms on
things like the detection of a sentiment or the use of certain terms and
images. I think a strong critic would put up something Pirsig actually said
and find a way to criticize what he's saying, not what you smell between the
lines or whatever. In addition to being weak,, I also think it's unfair and
uncool. And if you're sincere about indentifying a problem in the MOQ, why
wouldn't you pull out every quote you could in order to demonstrate and
explain the nature of that problem? See, I tend to think that you use
vagueness as a tactic and on some level you know that getting specific about
Pirsig's assertions would only hurt your case. You hardly ever respond
directly to Pirsig's assertions even when I quote them. When the author's
actual position is put into play, you'll often retreat by making a
distinction between Pirsig's Pirsig and Matt's Pirsig, between biography and
philosophy. In other words, you change the subject.
Matt agreed with Matt:
Not only am I fully confident in my reading of the mystics/positivists bit
that was done off the top of my head (partially because when I went back
that night to look, I found what I remembered being there), but in the
course of things I've paid attention to Pirsig's texts more than most. I'm
still waiting for your essay that presents your reading of ZMM or Lila or
Pirsig's corpus that is more than just a few isolated block quotes from
Pirsig (or Wilber for that matter). I've at least made an effort at making
an extended argument to support some of the things I say. ...
dmb says:
Do you think its possible to pay attention "more than most" and still be
incorrect about something? I do. Just the other day you confessed to
relative ignorance when it comes to Eastern Philosophy and mysticism. I
think anybody who ignored these areas would be bound to misunderstand
Pirsig, even a person who is well versed in Western philosophy. And the main
thrust of my complaints about your project is that you're treating Eastern
ideas as if they were Western ideas. This is how statements about the
ineffable nature of mystical experience get misconstrued as mere
metaphysics, as representationalism, as claiming absolute truths and such.
As for my own essay, you can find it at robertpirsig.org. Its all about the
lack of mysticism in the West and suggests myth (at the movies) can help
with that problem. I wasn't thinking of your "Confessions of a fallen
Priest" (Which I found unreadable) when I picked the title of my essay, but
its called "Fun with Blasphemy". Maybe you'll take a look and offer some
uncomprehending and irrelevant critique of that too.
"From Phaedrus' viewpoint, James's epistemology might be understood as a
reversal of Plato's synthesis and a return to the Sophists' perspective."
Page 171 of the Guidebook
"The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination. Its
all a ghost, and in antiquity was so recognized as a ghost, the whole
blessed world we live in." ZAMM 31
"Their object was not any single absolute truth, but the improvement of
men." ZAMM 337
See what I did there? That's right. Now, I'm gonna highjack all your
threads. We'll see how you like it, Mr. one-trick pony. Just kidding. I
don't have the energy to be that obnoxious. I think exploring the meaning of
those quotes would go a long way toward getting at the meaning of language
within the MOQ and they're actually intended to be on the topic of this
thread. If I understand things rightly, you'd say you agree with Pirsig here
and so would I. Yet we do not agree with each other. So the way I figure it,
one of us has it wrong. Would you really be interested in finding out who is
wrong if there was a possibility that it was you? I'm willing despite my
relative lack of confidence.
Thanks,
dmb
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/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 : Sun Dec 04 2005 - 00:10:12 GMT