Re: MD Going away

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 18:01:35 BST

  • Next message: Joe: "Re: Re: MD The Transformation of Love"

    Hi Matt, all,

    Am I allowed to simply say 'ditto'?

    Sam

    "Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of 'duty toward self' which is an
    almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word 'dharma', sometimes described as the 'one' of the
    Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the 'virtue' of the Ancient Greeks be identical?" - The
    Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:28 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Going away

    > Paul said:
    > I know I started with the second [synthetic] position and ended up firmly in the first [real
    understanding position]. I now think that the first position should be a precursor to the second.
    Make a real effort to understand Pirsig first but modify the MOQ if it doesn't give you the
    intellectual harmony he intended.
    >
    > Matt:
    >
    > A short apology for my project:
    >
    > It may surprise people, but I think Paul is right. I think you do have to understand someone
    before you can really synthesize them, or expand on them, or do things creatively with them. The
    part where people think I've gone wrong is that they think I don't understand what Pirsig's message
    is, or that I've never made the attempt. Well, I started out firmly in the first position. My
    early writings (posted in the Forum) were attempts to use Pirsig to relieve some of the
    philosophical problems that other philosophers had generated. I think I did understand Pirsig
    fairly well. It was from that understanding that I moved beyond it to my present position, which
    many find degenerate.
    >
    > The disputed fact is my understanding of Pirsig. Many think I've got him all wrong, and if I just
    tried shedding my blinders I'd really see him how he should be seen. They think I'm seeing ghosts.
    Well, if all of my critiques really were ghosts, I don't think my reception would be quite so
    hostile. I would expect more, "Well, Matt, I think your critique is off because Pirsig already is
    fully pragmatized and historicized." After all, I would think that if you saw someone who was
    simply seeing mirages, but his heart was in the right place, you wouldn't try and bull rush him.
    But then again, perhaps its just the temperament of the respondents.
    >
    > I don't think it is just temperament (though that's partially the case). I think its pretty
    obvious that people want to rebuff my critiques by saying that Pirsig already is in the pragmatist
    camp. But then I see the same people saying very unpragmatist things. They draw the wrong
    consequences. That's why I still add in my two cents. I think people are drawing the wrong
    consequences from their philosophical positions. One of the few exceptions, I think, is Platt who
    is unabashedly an ahistorical, foundationalist Pirsigean. I commend it insofar as he sees the
    consequences of pragmatism, shrieks in horror, and runs to one of the only other coherent sides. I
    think he's wrong to shriek, but I think others try unsuccessfully to carve a middle ground that just
    rehabilitates what I see as the problems of ahistoricism and foundationalism, all the while claiming
    to go around them, or solve them, or refute them, etc.
    >
    > The real issue involved is our understandings of Pirsig. But I think it is a bit unfair and a bit
    rhetorically cheeky to say that none of us try to understand Pirsig. Those of us doing creative
    things with Pirsig already have tried to understand Pirsig. That's why we moved on to doing
    creative things with him. Others just don't agree with the original understanding, that's all.
    >
    > As a way of backing up my claim to understanding Pirsig, Platt himself thought very highly of my
    early posts. On that count, at least Platt should agree that I understood Pirsig, but that I'm now
    simply a degenerate philosopher, rather than a philosopher who's misunderstood Pirsig.
    >
    > Matt
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 18:02:25 BST