DMB said: ..."Socrates essentially defined philosophy as a common, basic human activity when he said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Plato said that philosophy was for the very few people who were able to do it. Pirsig said philosophy isn’t worth doing if it doesn’t help with life. Rorty said philosophy is pretty remote from life." You answered right away, saying, "I think they can, in their way, fit together coherently".
I'm not quite sure how to square that intro with what you're saying about the piece now, exactly, but whatever. I just wanted to remind you where and how this got started. You're acting like I'm just an unreasonable crazy person to have expected anything about the philosophies of Plato or Pirsig. Matt: And I will again repeat (it yet again different words) that it is acutely unreasonable (though not perhaps crazy) to think that any great philosopher worth reading more than once has got only one thing going on in his philosophy that is worth focusing on. To put the matter differently again, the paper isn't about how Plato's entire philosophy fits together nor Pirsig's, but about how select parts relate to each other. If we use that circle metaphor I used, then we might say I highlighted each of four points on the circumference so that we might explore what was going on in the center--the relationship between the points. And you don't know how to square my intro? I told the reader _exactly_ what I was going to talk about in the four participants. I've written shitty intros before that completely mislead the auditor on what to expect (only occasionally on purpose), but how more concise and direct can a guy with a wordy reputation be? DMB sad: I'm not making hay out of "anything". Why do you insist on trivializing my concerns? Matt: I didn't. After _you_ admitted that your concerns were the muted "I wish you'd done something else," I agreed that maybe someday I'll write that book which you should be the one writing. DMB said: I think it is not only unfair and inaccurate to characterize the MOQ's mysticism as "my predeliction", I think it also begs the central question. Matt: No, no, there is no central question in this case. I begged no question about a correct interpretation of Pirsig because I wasn't advancing a controversial interpretation of Pirsig's philosophy. I was, clearly, advancing an understanding of Pirsig's philosophy (out of the bit I was highlighting) and I would maintain that it is in the correct spirit, but the mind-boggling part of this inane routine we're currently enacting is that you have done _nothing_ to controvert any particular piece of the atmospheric understanding of Pirsig I _did_ advance. DMB sid: I've been making a case for the centrality of mysticism for a long time and you're just not into it. This is the heart of our disagreement. Matt: The centrality to what, Pirsig? Shit, I've conceded that mysticism is a very important part in grappling the entire compass of Pirsig's project many times. It's not my focus. I add, if anything, different pieces to different parts of the puzzle. You're the one who sees a problem with taking off different chunks at a time. Apparently you won't even allow it in classicists like Dodds and Vlastos. But if by centrality you mean to life, then absolutely I'm not into it. Just not my thing. I like Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman. Sue me. DMB said: Obviously, in response to your throw-away piece, the issue has come up again. Your response this time is a pretty good microcosm of the whole thing too. It's just my interests and your interests or its just my prediliction, my focus. It's just that you were REALLY offering a coherent picture of their respective attitudes about philosophy. It's just that you're telling a different story. Don't you see how all that is just one big series of question begging? Matt: Nope. Different claims need to be met differently, and I only apologize for making many different kinds of claims, of working many angles, of having many more things I like to think about, and things I'm able to talk about (small as it is). And please, I don't always answer that we just have different interests. I've only recently started doing that in the endgame of discussion because it seems that, every time we try and find where we disagree, the real point of meaningful disagreement disappears before my eyes, though you apparently see it clearly and distinctly. I can only toss up my hands. DMB said: The question is not whether you're interested or how important I think it is. Is mysticism central to Pirsig's way of doing philosophy? Answering that question hinges on the textual evidence. It's really that simple. What do the books say? Matt: I will repeat that I agree, just so that we are clear. DMB said: Yes, yes, yes, I know interpretations are unavoidable and all that. Matt: I don't know what you are suggesting here. That I would think there's no such thing as a correct interpretation? I haven't, though, advanced such a thing, if ever, since I would guess 2003. For a long time now, I've advanced a distinction between biography and philosophy, between reconstructing a philosophy that the author would agree to and reconstructing one for one's own purposes. DMB said: Again, this so called "throw-away piece" was presented as a gift and you were the gift-bearer. Matt: Fuck you, dude. I was mentioning something I had written on my blog that talked about Pirsig just in case anyone here would be interested. This is a forum for discussion, is it not? Get your own website and fight your turf-war there, would you? Hell, I did. Matt p.s. I apologize to everyone else for the foul language and seeming hostility. Though DMB and I go back and forth from interpretational to personal hostility like a tennis match, I think my girlfriend was right in characterizing it as more like sibling rivalry. People get beat up, hurt, pissed and the like, and hey, we may not only grow up hating each other, but also grow up to be estranged as adults, but I think deep down we both know we're blood-brothers. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009 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/
