From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Tue May 20 2003 - 03:42:10 BST
Matt,
> Matt said:
> "I do think about what is good. But here's the different between me and
Plato and Pirsig at his worst. When I think about what is good, I'm
thinking about things that have the adjective good attached to them. What
Plato thought was that by meditating on the Good, as a thing-in-itself, we
would be able to be more moral. That's what led to metaphysics. The
pragmatist tradition throws that project away. I think Pirsig thinks
roughly the same thing, that by meditating on Quality, we will become better
quality people. That's how I read the end of Lila, when he says that "Good
is a noun." As I see it, that's a Platonic mistake."
Scott may be beating a dead horse, but says:
In particular, you say: "That's what led to metaphysics." I think you're
wrong about that.
The Rortyan view of Platonic metaphysics is that it is a case of 2500 years
of futile speculation, but another view is that it is 2500 years of truth
falling on deaf ears. There is debate about whether Plato was himself a
mystic, but say he was, or in any case look at the metaphysicians who
definitely were, like Plotinus, or Eckhart. Then one can say that the
appearance/reality distinction was not some proposition about a hidden
reality, but a statement of claimed fact of the hidden reality. In Pirsig's
case, it arose from his peyote experience and from his (apparent) madness,
and his Zen studies.
But clearly, Rorty can't accept this, since he is a materialist. To put it
another way, it is not a case that the appearance/reality distinction serves
no purpose, but that a materialist has to see it as false, as being
anti-materialist.
There is also the criticism that it (metaphysics) is a conversation-stopper.
It seems to me that it is the Rorty's of the world who are trying to stop
the philosophical conversation, and again for dogmatic reasons. It is
Rorty's belief in materialism that leads him to put down Platonic
philosophy, not a historical summing up. Of course, for him, metaphysics
cannot do any good, because he believes there is nothing to be metaphysical
about. But 2500 years of mystics, some of them metaphysicians, should tell
him he might be wrong. (How to interpret quantum mechanics might also get
him questioning.)
No doubt I am begging the question by believing the mystics to be what they
claim, though I think the amount of data available gives me some
justification for doing so. In any case, what I am trying to say here, then,
is that in your criticism of Pirsig's metaphysical tendencies, you are being
just as dogmatic, just as, if not more, dependent on a particular belief in
How Things Really Are -- in particular, They Are such as to lead one to
discount mystics. Have you let yourself be open to writings of contemporary,
philosophically literate mystics, or do you assume it is a waste of time to
read them? (Examples: Bernadette Roberts, Sri Aurobindo, John Wren-Lewis,
and of course my fave, Franklin Merrell-Wolff.)
- Scott
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 : Tue May 20 2003 - 03:43:49 BST