Greetings Matt, So, we're back to ambiguity. Well, I like my own, not necessarily anybody else's. Unless it's presented as poetry, song or less than 50 words. I think I'll answer your last question which is fairly clear:
>Wasn't the idea behind Pirsig's Quality that it >is value, i.e. judgments, all the way down to the very core of reality? It was a suggestion from personal experience, not RMP's written word. There is an awareness sans concept to be found. But never mind. It sounds like meditation is not for you. It was a suggestion, not a command. Marsha At 12:41 AM 4/1/2008, you wrote: >You shouldn't apologize Marsha. > >In a way, I just trapped you (though I actually >wasn't really thinking about it). What I said >took advantage of certain instincts that we can >find in Pirsig's philosophy, instincts that lead >to some heavy conflict, both in one's >"philosophical positions" (if one is inclined to >have such things) and in one's practical dealings with people. > >The case is laid out in a paper I wrote, "Pirsig >Institutionalized," in the Forum, but it's >pretty simple: Pirsig says "trust only >yourself," but the whole idea behind >philosophical conversation is that one shouldn't >trust _only_ themselves. This sums up what I >just saw happen (earlier in the paper I had >argued that the MD displayed the earmarks of a >"profession," and so here I'm referring to the >phenomena as "antiprofessionalism"): > >"The consequence of antiprofessionalism is not >only a bad attitude towards the others in your >field, but because you are also in the field, a >bad image of yourself: it breeds >self-flagellation and bad >self-esteem. Antiprofessionalism 'urges >impossible goals (the breaking free or bypassing >of the professional network) and therefore has >the consequence of making people ashamed of what >they are doing.' In the MD, this causes a >curious event in which people are engaged in a >conversation of exploration, but seem forced to >add (implicitly and invisibly or explicitly as >salutation or closing) the addenda 'but that's >just my opinion' which conveys the sentiment >that participants don't really even want to be >having the conversation. Of course they are >your opinions, whose else would they be? The >conversation is there to explore those opinions, >to weed out the bad ones. But in stating >'that's just my opinion,' you've excluded >exploration because youve basically just >asserted them as the bald truth of you and >exited the room: 'Hey, heres my opinion, see >you later.' The reason this >half-foot-in-half-foot-out approach exists is >because participants feel bad about saying >anything at all because they feel they are >intruding into an area where they have no >jurisdiction. This is the feeling of shame that >emerges from Pirsigs impossible >antiprofessionalism. No one has authority over >anyone else, so you should feel bad for making >an assertion of truth over someone elses." > >You said that you hope I meditate because you'd >"hate to think" that I'm "missing the really >good stuff." My confession is that one of my >pet peeves are, what I see as, blithe >suggestions that my life is missing >something. It's not suggestions: its the ones >that invoke "my life"--as if I had a huge hole >in my life that I didn't even know about. While >that could always be true of anyone, and I don't >mind suggestions at all, I just react to that >particular way of formulating the suggestion. > >I reacted as I often do in such circumstances >when confronted by MDer's with >views/arguments/whatever that I don't like: I >respond with Pirsig saying/doing/arguing/viewing >the opposite. I don't even need to explain why >I do this, because the very nature of the MD, >the fact that people are here in the first >place, while not itself explaining the strategy, >implies the instinctive understanding we all >have: we take very seriously indeed what Pirsig says. > >But what does it mean when the guy we all take >seriously says that we shouldn't take seriously what he says? > >It could mean all sorts of things, and only a >weak understanding of life and philosophy would >allow someone to get away with thinking that >such an obvious contradiction itself justifies a >dismissal. And we here don't dismiss >Pirsig. But such things do need confrontation. > >Even if you were sarcastically replying with >your apology, as in, "I'm sorry Your Majesty, >all due apologies. My mistake for intruding my >lowly opinion upon your busy ears, for we all >know that you have everything figured out, Your >All-Knowingness." I know what I sound like, and >I'm certainly ripe for such picking. But what I >balk at is the notion that there is a "right >way" to, in your words, "discover it >firsthand." This is part and parcel with the >"huge hole in your life" rhetoric that I've >never been partial to, but this one strays >beyond a formulation of a suggestion to an >actual philosophical position, one that I find >at the bottom of both Pirsig's distinction >between philosophy and philosophology (which has >been the focus of most of my criticisms) and at >the bottom of Platonism (which I think is >fundamentally antithetical to Pirsig). > >At the root of my distaste is this: what is >secondhand about my experience of life if I >never meditate? Are not all experiences >direct? My experience of a book, for >instance? Sure, I'm not experiencing a >motorcycle journey by reading ZMM. But the >deployment of the distinction between direct and >indirect seems to grabbing at much more than the >simple, easily understood distinction between >watching Rattle and Hum and seeing a U2 concert >firsthand. What if a person honestly and >sincerely doesn't enjoy live concerts because >they are a little claustrophobic, sensitive to >loud sound, and not that in to handing over $200 >to see Bono's fat head on a Jumbotron? Are we >really going to press the general claim that >typically is pressed on others here, that, in >this case, Rattle and Hum is a second-rate >experience compared to a live show? What if >this person disagrees? What then? Have they misunderstood reality? > >This last rhetorical question seems to follow >from the direct/indirect deployment--but then it >runs afoul of Pirsig's Phaedrusian injuction: >every person has a keen enough grasp of reality themselves. > >I like suggestions, though I have to confess >I've never felt the urge to meditate. And I >agree, seeing one's own nature is valuable. But >your suggestion wasn't the easy platitude, it >was that I may have a very mistaken notion >indeed, but I doubt one can ever have _radical_ >doubts about their own self-image unless they >are already in the throes of a radical >make-over. And those are randomly produced--DQ >can appear anywhere, when we least expect it. > >But to confront you one last time with Pirsig: >you said, "To watch your thoughts without >judgement, to see your (human) nature is valuable." > >Wasn't the idea behind Pirsig's Quality that it >is value, i.e. judgments, all the way down to the very core of reality? > >Matt > > > > > >>See, that's what I never understood: if I > >>meditated, then I _would_ miss the good > >>stuff--I'd be meditating, and not out and about > >>doing what I do when I'm not reading and writing. > >> > >>Besides, I'm a big believer in Pirsig's epigram from Plato's Phaedrus: > >> > >>And what is good, Phædrus, > >>And what is not good... > >>Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? > > > > Greetings Matt, > > > > Of course, and I'm nobody special to be giving > > good advice. Yet I still want to say > > something. It's one thing to have philosophers, > > scientists, psychologists, holymen, and even > > great authors explain to you about self and > > reality, and it's quite another to discover it > > firsthand. To watch your thoughts without > > judgement, to see your (human) nature is valuable. > > > > I apologize for the advice. > > > > Marsha >_________________________________________________________________ >Test your Star IQ >http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
