Hey Ian, Ian said: Matt where you say "Pirsig wanted to say ..." "Every person needs their own philosophy, because the arc of America is our individuality." Where do you get that from ?
Matt: It's a melting of things he said: things like the philosophology section (where he states the only way to read philosophy is to first figure out what you believe) and at the beginning of Lila where he says the Metaphysics of Quality already exists. And the latter half of the comment is the Emersonian connection, which Pirsig, as one example, incarnates in his cooptation of Native American culture. In this particular melting, Pirsig both thinks that philosophy is wide and idiosyncratic but also a bit necessary, for it is the wisdom we bring to every unique situation we confront as individuals--so we _need_ to become more explicit and self-comprehending about it. And in that sense, I don't exactly disagree. Ian said: The thing you call the weird monster "MoQ created to be transcended" Is the thing that make it so attractive - as a "universal" framework of evolutionary layers of patterns, (as I've said before), it contains the means of its own evolution. All its own history as well as its future. Steve clearly sees that too - "never ... the final word on reality". Matt: Yeah, but it is exactly my contention that we are decieving ourselves if we think that _this_, its self-transcending quality, is what makes this "system" so attractive--for _what_ evolves? _US!_ _We_ are the ones who evolve, we are ideas, but we are ideas in motion, we use them. Self-transcendence isn't even new with Pirsig (Hegel?), so it makes even less sense to lay our weight on this aspect. I think it is a "bad faith" aspect--"the Metaphysics of Quality" is as much a rhetorical figure as Richard Rorty's infamous "we's". Who are these we's? people ask. What is this Metaphysics of Quality that stands apart from Pirsig? Both of them are rhetorical strategies of invitation to the outside, making your thoughts useful to others. I have no problem with that, but to say that the MoQ "contains the means of its own evolution" is about as helpful and obvious as saying that each person contains the means of their own evolution--of course we do, who else would? Perhaps people needed that to be made explicit in "their system," but by making a "system" state it explicitly still obfuscates (by virtue of the system being the focus of attention) the fact of individuals facing life--because every individual facing life as an individual facing life _knows_ that they are in constant flux and evolvement of the tools of engagement, of their ideas, their wisdom. Philosophical _systems_ have blotted out life from Philosophy's Sight, which is what Pirsig wanted to correct, he wanted to bring life back to philosophy, as much as philosophy back to life. It is Steve's circumlocution--that saying the MoQ is historical is just to say that Pirsig is a finite, historically situated being--that frees us from the temptation towards bad faith, by taking the "system" too seriously, which is not what Pirsig wanted. His rhetorical structure--his mode of externalizing his ideas for public scrutiny and acceptance--forced him into this position, but if we read carefully, as I think Steve has, we can avoid what just looks like a pratfall. Like when Kierkegaard said of Hegel that if he'd just prefaced his Science of Logic with, "This is all just a thought-experiment," he would've been the greatest philosopher who ever lived; but as it is, he's just a fool. If you get hung up on system, you'll begin to think you live _inside_ the system, like a box, rather that it just being a collection of tools, like the many, many others you use in life (though none of them are "systems"). You get inside the box, and then wonder how it goes anywhere--well, you're the one who got inside the box. I go wherever I want just fine--of course, I'm not in a box. I don't think Steve sees clearly what you think he does, because I think Steve has moved beyond system. Following Steve's circumlocution, when one says, "Pirsig never said the MoQ has the final word on reality," we can understand it is the truest, obvious wisdom of life, and yet one philosophy needs most: no person ever has the final word on reality. And I never said that the Metaphysics of Quality is "unique and personal to Pirsig in its value." You misunderstood what I was saying. Matt _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009 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/
