Hi Matt, On Behalf Of Matt Kundert > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:26 PM > Hi Mary, > > Mary said: > people here tend to fall into one of three camps. There are > those who feel the philosophy fulfills a need in their lives or > answers an important question, another group views it as > an academic philosophy to be evaluated against its > predecessors, while a third rejects it yet finds value in taking > the time to ridicule or oppose. No matter which group you > are in, you will find yourself offended by the point of view of > the other two. > ... > And so you have revealed yourself to lie within the second > camp, Pirsig as academically interesting. > > Matt: > I'm not so sure I quite agree that your tripartite camp > demarcation catches all the interesting differences. [Mary Replies] I would, then, be genuinely curious to hear your conceptions of camps 4, 5 and 6 for a number of reasons, not least of which would be to enhance my understanding of others.
For > example, I'm not offended by people in Camp-1, though I > am generally annoyed by people in Camp-3. And Camp-3, > while perhaps catching the point of view of They Who > Shall Not Be Named (Struan Hellier and Glenn Bradford), it > doesn't seem to really catch, say, Ham Priday, who also > isn't really offended, but more just wants somebody to > talk to, and look, here's a stable, persisting group of > people. (Though, even here, that doesn't do justice to > either Struan or Glenn, whose strident tone in their later > years came about, not because they were offended by > Pirsig, I take it, but by the pious tones of some of his > defenders.) [Mary Replies] I remember them, but haven't bothered to review the archives from those days. Didn't Struan say "fuck" a lot? And why should being in Camp-1 preclude you > from evaluation against other philosophers? Why should > thinking that Pirsig's philosophy is great and helps you > with spiritual questions (however one defines "spirit") > preclude you from reading other philosophers, or taking an > interest in the history of philosophy? > [Mary Replies] So, I'm reading along in your post, and begin to feel a vague sense of unease. This as yet has no name, other than a silent alarm that you somehow seem to believe me to be a spiritual person, when in fact I've spent my life being decidedly non-spiritual. where would you get such an idea? Should I reread my own posts? Is spirituality leaking out through a crack that is obvious to everyone else but not to me? How embarrassing! Mary, the hard-headed pragmatist. Perhaps this is my mistake? Does "know thyself" apply here? Anyway, that's far from what you asked. To answer your question, no, I do not object to reading other philosophers, but I do find the focus some have had here on holding Pirsig's work against James a red-herring. If the goal is (and as a goal this is legitimately debatable) to inspire the average pragmatic, hard-headed Westerner to consider even for a moment that there might be some meaning to life other than the next trip to the shopping mall, then I don't think James is the ticket. One must first convince them that their perceived pragmatism is not pragmatism at all. If you don't know that you have a problem, then even the best solution will be of no value. > To say that my interest in Pirsig is "merely academic" kind > of misses the point of people who like to read. [Mary Replies] I too like to read, and imagine that nearly everyone here does, so ok. > I may have a curious relationship to Pirsig because--what > is easiest to say--I'm an academic. But to sniff, "Oh, he's > a philosophologist," doesn't do justice to the spiritual quest > people who like to read are on. I read and compare > because I want the better. And I'm impatient. I don't look > down my nose at people who like Pirsig, and just want to > use him for themselves. Because in both cases, the person > in a monogamist relationship with Pirsig and the whorish, > polygamist (like myself) are out for themselves--they are > on their own spiritual journey, and who am I to tell them to > sow their wild oats? > [Mary Replies] Apparently, I inadvertently struck some kind of chord about academicia. No harm intended. I have great admiration for the quest of University and find it a very odd place to be indeed cast as the opponent of academicians. The irony does not escape me. I only meant to caution that it is possible to dissect a subject to the point of irrelevance. > I think the better distinction to get started splitting people > up into groups is between philosophy and biography, > between asking "What's the better thing to think?" and > "What would X think?" A purely academic relationship to > Pirsig would be if one were writing a history of 20th Century > X (philosophy, literature, popular culture, American > Buddhism, etc.), and had to take his books into account. > That would be pure biography. Pure biography is open to > anyone--you don't have to be a true believer to do it. (For > example, I know a lot more about Christianity and what > they are supposed to believe than some of my Christian > friends--that neither invalidates my knowledge, nor does it > say anything about their faith.) [Mary Replies] An interesting digression lies here. How well could you say a biographer has done his job if the adherents of his subject find no recognition in it? Pure philosophy would be > something like being on a battlefield without anybody to > fight (this image is an extension of my argument that you > can't evacuate history from philosophy as "philosophology" > seems to suppose, part of my argument in the MoQ.org > essay "Philosophologology"). > > The tricky question is for those of us who have a battle > commander--or, let's say, a wizened advisor. When you > ask for advice, you do need to carry out the instructions > correctly--so you need to be able to do biography. And in > this sense, you can be corrected by the non-believing, > infidel pure biographers. But, when you are on your own > spiritual quest, rather than fighting someone else's, you will > sometimes find yourself in disagreement with your spiritual > advisor. Having a wizened advisor that you find yourself in > almost complete agreement with might be like having a > book of proverbs, but probably is more like sharpening your > mind against a trusted whetstone. To figure out what you > think, you always go back to the whetstone to sharpen > your thoughts, but you always try to remember that the > stone is not you. > [Mary Replies] I like what Pirsig had to say about this while discussing "The MoQ & Art", where he prefers to see his comments as the beginning point of discussion rather than the end. > Am I a believer? That's complicated, but probably no more > complicated than assessing whether individual Christians are > authentic or not--unless you're in the Catholic church, > there's no real authoritative body to throw you out if you > self-identify, in whatever weird way you think. I have no > trouble calling myself a Pirsigian. Perhaps it's just habit, but > I don't think so. I have a "spirit before the letter" approach > to his corpus, have no problem distinguishing between > getting Pirsig right and getting what I think right, have no > problem ignoring parts I don't like, and get tired of orthodox > readers who want to throw me out of their church, just > because I ocassionlly like to pray in front of the cross. > > Yet, on the other hand, I do seem to have that annoying > tendency to throw Pirsig under the bus every time things > get hot--"hey, what do you make of the levels?" "Eh, I > don't go in for that kind of thing...." I seem like a > convenient Pirsigian, which appears to the disciples like a > Historian of Religion who only goes to church on Christmas > and Easter (analogous to ZMM and Lila, and _man_ do I > think Christmas way cooler). Yet, because the Master > preached tolerance and goodwill, and that faith in him was > really faith in yourself (i.e. philosophy is something you do, > a spiritual quest of which everyone must necessarily have > their own), I can't help but think that my path is as > legitimate as anyone else's, and that--biographically > speaking--I'm right in thinking that the Master is on my > side on this score. > > Mary said: > I liken this [the three camps] to religion, where the most > maddening thing you can say to a religious person is that > Jesus was nothing more than a wise man with valuable > insights to make. > > Matt: > The religious metaphor is always at hand for these kinds of > things, though there is something wrong with it, as "disciple" > seems to cast doubt on how "free-thinking" the Pirsigian is. [Mary Replies] I agree with your observation, though I think you can forgive a lot of the argument here as being more 'biographical', as you explain the difference, than catechistic. There's a desire to 'get it right". > > Mary said: > The crux of my question goes right to the heart of the > differences between the three groups I've described. > Depending on where you are in your journey, you either will > or will not find value in seeing the nature of SOM as an > insidious destroyer of equanimity. If you find personal > meaning in the MoQ, the purpose of the Intellectual Level > looms large for this reason. It is perhaps the central concept > you have attachment for. You think that everyone should > feel the enormity of Pirsig's insights that you see, and are > offended that they do not. But this is a mistake. To rail > against others who have not is unfair. Would I be > understanding of that which I had not experienced? If not, > why should I expect that of others? The MoQ can be > understood on many levels, and any of them are better > than none. > > Matt: > Heh, ya' know, I appreciate the attempt at tolerance and > goodwill at the end, but funny how the implicit path of the > journey leads to a specific interpretation of Pirsig's > philosophy. As in, one can only be part of Camp-1 if one > agrees with you that the intellectual level is the "central > concept." Whereas, if I'm not mistaken, Marsha has > recently emphasized how Quality is numero uno, and Joe > Mauer put in a bid for Lila to be replaced with the words > "Dynamic Quality." > > What kind of goodwill is it if I say, "No, it's okay, Mary, I > understand why you don't agree with me--you just aren't > as far down the path as I am." Maybe I'm more sensitive > to this because I get called a philosophological elitist > every couple days on the MD, but I try to avoid as much > as possible the appearance of condescension in the > shaping of Pirsigian philosophical individualism. > [Mary Replies] I would only say with all goodwill intended that goodwill was always intended. There is no condescension implicit. To say "depending on where you are in your journey" does not for a moment imply that I believe myself to be farther along than you. What would that even mean? Who said the journey was a single road with only one "right" direction? There are alternate routes. Very best, Mary 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
