RE: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 01:29:11 GMT

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?"

    Matt:
    Yeah, see, when you say, "our illusions are shattered," the only sense I
    can make of illusions is if there exists a reality behind the appearance of
    illusions. That's why I think Pirsig's riding a fence.

    DMB says:
    I can see why you'd think so, but I think you're mixing apples and oranges.
    The appearance/reality distinction runs through all of Western Philosophy.
    Its empiricism. It boils down to the simple question; how do I know if my
    perceptions of the world are real? To pin this on Modernity, or to claim the
    rejection of it defines postmodernity, I think, misrepresents things. If I
    recall, Rorty is rejecting philosophy as a whole and the said distinction is
    just one of the reasons for doing so.

    On another note, Postmodernism has a broad enough meaning to include things
    like postmodern art, architechture and literature. It is a whole set of
    movements in a variety of fields. Even within philosophical postmodernism,
    your definition is rather technical and extreme. Perhaps its an interesting
    question and a new thread called "Pirsig the Rortyian" should be started,
    but I don't think he gets to define the terms of the debate about whether or
    not Pirsig is post-post or whatever.

    On another note, both the MOQ and postmodernism are a reaction to the flaws
    of Modernity. I think that pomo is part of the problem Pirsig is trying to
    solve in rejecting SOM. The extreme pomos think they have rejected it too,
    but they've only rejected the O and embraced the S. There are no
    foundations, no truth. All we have are interpretations. Truth is a property
    of sentences. The MOQ and this kind of pomo both reject objectivity to the
    extent that even mysticism looks a like foundation to them. Which brings me
    to the actual point...

    The shattering of illusions, an enlightenment, a mystical experience,
    whatever we might like to call it, is not related to the distinctions we use
    in philosophy or epistemology. As Huston Smith said in summarizing the great
    chain of being of the perennial philosophy, "Reality is graded, and with it,
    cognition." (Notice how Pirsig's levels reflect a graded reality too.) The
    idea that reality and consciousness are inseparable, the idea is Thou art
    That, you ARE the ground of being. The epistemological quest to find the
    real reality at the bottom of things is far different than the mystical
    picture of a graded, evolutionary expansion of consciousness.

    Thanks.

    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 24 2003 - 01:31:33 GMT