dmb said to Dan:
...Basically, my complaint is about irrelevance, which is not a word I'd apply
to any part of Pirsig's books.
Dan replied:
I know many of my stories could be construed as irrelevant. I tend to treat the
reader as if they have a mind of their own. For instance, what does a
misspelled sign have to do with the MOQ? If I have to tell you, then why write
a story in the first place? In ZMM the narrator says that metaphysics isn't any
good unless it contributes to making everyday life better, right?
dmb says:
Well, I only vaguely recall something about a misspelled sign so I don't know
what it has to do with the MOQ or what you're saying here. In any case, my
complaints were not aimed at you and I do not think your contributions are
trivial, gossipy, or frustrating. I'm not complaining about stories because of
their narrative form so much as the personal little anecdotes. There is
something about a lot of that stuff that's uncomfortably needy, as if the aim
is not to make a point but to get personal approval, as if the aim is not to be
understood but to be loved. It's a bit obscene.
Dan also said:
Anyway... this quote comes to mind:"She was strangely unaware that she could
look and see freshly for herself..." (ZMM) This is a key quote when it comes to
understanding and separating (what I would term) a Dynamically constructed
piece of writing from the static-bound. Imitation kills creativity. I don't
want to hear what all the other countless philosophers think. I want to hear
what you as the writer thinks.
dmb says:
Yea, I like that writing lesson too. The single brick and all that. But I don't
think fresh seeing and listening to other philosophers are mutually exclusive.
Quite the opposite, actually. The dull student was forced to see freshly by
focusing on something so small and simple that she could get familiar with it
in a relatively short time. Began to write only after pondering it for a while.
It also forced her to see freshly because their just wasn't any essays about
the Opera House brick that she could imitate. As I mentioned before, the
history of science shows a pattern of this. Progress occurs only after a long
period of consensus and consolidation, which is to say fresh seeing comes
directly out of highly developed familiarity. That familiarity is what allows
one to see the anomaly, to see the little thread that dangles at the edge at
makes things untidy. Sometimes, when the researcher finds that little thing
that doesn't fit, she gives it a pull and the whole system comes unraveled.
Philosophy or any other endeavor works like that too. Sure, a guy can get stuck
listening to other philosophers and never get past the imitation phase but I
think it would be a stretch to say we ought to ignore what philosophers say for
the sake of freshness. Lack of knowledge and familiarity can kill creativity
pretty fast, you know?
Dan said:
As an example, John's fixation with Royce... it may well be a Dynamic insight
that James and Royce were best buddies. I did not know that. But don't shove
Royce quotes down my throat day after day. Talk about dry and irrelevant. Make
it interesting. Build a case. Don't put me to sleep.
dmb says:
I just learned that James and Jung spent a couple evenings together talking
about religious experience. In a letter, Jung tells his correspondent that he
was very impressed with James. James also spent time with Freud that same
weekend. Anyway, I agree. If John thinks there is a case to be made for Royce
here then he's gonna have to do the work. I've got more than enough homework to
do as it is. If I thought a study of Royce would illuminate pragmatism or the
MOQ I might be more tempted to spend time on it. But we don't have to guess or
even make simple inferences. James and Pirsig both tell us flat out that they
don't go for that Absolutism stuff. Making a successful case in the face of
that seems very unlikely and so the pursuit of Royce would be a wild goose
chase.
Dan said:
...But Chris doesn't want to be told what to do. And if left to his own
devices, he'd learn by just doing. But the narrator-teacher's not having any of
that. To him, it's a bad sign that Chris won't do what he's told. He's shirking
work. Not good in the mountains. Not good in the classroom. There's a clear
correlation between not judging Chris on his actions and not grading students
in the classroom.
dmb says:
Well, I don't think it's about disobedience so much as it's about ego climbing.
The whole thing is a nightmare to Chris because he's trying to race up the
mountain, then he gets tired, then he gets hurt because he's tired. Then he's
humiliated because dad has to carry his load, then he feels disappointed by not
making all the way to the top because, for him, it's all about triumph. I think
that's what withholding the grades was about too. It says, don't worry about
getting to the top. Just focus on the climbing itself, step by step, and then
you'll get to the top, then you'll get that "A". It doesn't hurt that the
capital letter "A" looks like a mountain.
Dan said:
...I guess what bothers me most is posters who insist on changing the MOQ to
suit their own ideas. And it's clear reading their words that they've spent
little to no time actually reading RMP's work. I don't know where to begin so
though I might once in a while burst forth I generally ignore those posts.
dmb says:
I agree and I think one would have to change the MOQ to to make it suit theism.
This is the most common form of distortion. I also agree where you say, "we all
know what intellect means. Yet it goes on and on and on. Christ. I could just
scream".
Dan said:
Something new and original is so rare! Like you say, a person has to be steeped
in prolonged and careful engagement. But there's more to it than that.
Otherwise they'd just be regurgitating the same old stuff. The passage on
Poincaré mentions the 'subliminal self' as preintellectual awareness. The
Dynamic Quality of LILA. You could say it takes all that stale junk we learn
and turns it into golden moments. And we never know when or where they'll turn
up. Most likely it'll be unlooked for and a surprise.
dmb says:
Yes, the passage on Poincare is the perfect illustration of what I mean. The
pre-intellectual awareness that gave rise to a new hypothesis doesn't happen in
a vacuum of knowledge. The problem or question can't even be detected without
prolonged and careful engagement, let alone a brilliant new solution to that
problem. This holds in Pirsig's case too. He spent years and years searching
for his Quality and then he gave up. When he started teaching in Bozeman, he
had given up and he says it's very important to understand that he had given
up. This is the stuckness that comes before the flash of insight. His mind was
like a super-saturated solution just waiting for a catalyst to crystalize it.
Are you teaching Quality, she asked? And here we are 50 years later talking
about what came out of that one little question.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
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/md/archives.html
