Matt said to Krimel:
... I--as a philosopher personally reflecting on his metaphors--can't really
see it [Pirsig's cultural lens metaphor] as a major alteration because the
basic metaphor has stayed the same. What it does is update it to not be so
static, but if you've already lodged complaints against the entire ocular
metaphor itself, then it isn't clear what more is gained by going back to it.
It's like being asked to go back to a geocentric view ...
dmb says:
Upon reflection, you don't like the entire ocular metaphor itself, eh?. Since
"reflection" is itself one of thee primary ocular metaphors, your claim is
ironic enough to evoke laughter.
And that's just what Pirsig is doing with his cultural lens metaphor. He's
using an ocular metaphor to undermine the myth of the given, to dispute the
idea that we simply observe the world and especially to show how the
metaphysical assumptions behind theories of correspondence and representation.
In other words, you are rejecting Pirsig's imagery despite the fact that he
uses that imagine to dispute the very same thing that you find objectionable
about ocular metaphors. Whether you realize it or not, in rejecting Pirsig's
metaphor, you're rejecting the very idea that serves as the basis of that
rejection. This is the same kind of ham-handed use of Rortyism that I was
complaining about a couple of weeks ago. This kind of move makes you seem to be
a staunch defender of slogans that you don't really understand. It's like you
don't really "see" the philosophical problem with ocular metaphors and so you
attack the metaphor whether it actually suffers from that problem or not. That
lacks finesse, Mr. Kundert. That's what I mean by "ham-handed".
We know Pirsig's "view" does not suffer from this problem because he expresses
the same idea several times and in several different ways. His correction of
Descartes, for example. He approvingly quotes the slogan, "we are suspended in
language" and says our reality is built of ghosts, of analogy upon analogy. He
says nature only tells us what the culture predisposes us to hear. Etc., etc..
These are all ways of saying what many philosophers believe today; that reality
is socially constructed. That's what the SOM glasses represent in Pirsig's
metaphor, the basic assumptions of our culture, the ones that determine how we
"see" the "world". This is one area where Pirsig and Rorty and a whole lot of
other thinkers agree. It is an idea you already substantially subscribe to and
yet you are willing to reject it because the mode of expression conjures an
"image" you don't like? I think further "reflection" is needed, sir.
I think ocular metaphors work pretty well most of the time because they make
things so "clear". Everyone knows what it's like to cope with darkness and
obscurity and nobody likes it. Somehow, such unsettling situations are quite
apt for the expression of ignorance and confusion. I mean, poetically they work
and using them doesn't commit you to a particular epistemological position,
especially when you're using them to dispute that position as Pirsig does.
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
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
