Hi Matt,
Can you state the question in one sentence? Marsha On Jun 20, 2010, at 10:26 PM, Matt Kundert wrote: > > Hi Mary, > > Mary said: > Pirsig speaks often with personal humility, as when he said > something on the DVD to the effect that he wanted his > comments about art treated as a starting point and not an > ending point of discussion. A major part of his work deals > with different aspects of humility: transcending the > absolutist nature of an ego-fueled SOM perspective, or > transcending self to see that we are but part of a larger > whole, or seeing that all is Morality, or that truth has a > small "t". These are important themes. To be humble is to > be just a little closer to what he is talking about. Taken in > that spirit, it seems perfectly natural for all of us to speak > with an "it's just my opinion" voice about most things. It > also lends an implicit air of respect for divergent views. I > like it. > > Matt: > In my honest opinion, surveying the course of my time at > the MD (10 years) and linking my personal experience here > in conversation and in other avenues to a general > understanding of the course 2500 years on philosophical > conversation, I've come to think that the "implicit air of > respect for divergent views" is _not_ best generated by > the rhetorical affect under discussion. > > I think you are absolutely right, Mary, to link that affect to > a kind of "theoretical humility": I, too, take this to be the > opposite tenor of the course of 2500 years. I link "humility" > to the ascetic mood that Nietzsche denounced in favor of > the "self-assertive" mood created by Bacon, and theorized > best by Nietzsche's hero, Emerson. > > _Personal_ humility is a wonderful trait to have, and > thankfully my two greatest heroes, Pirsig and Rorty, had it > in spades as it turns out. But it might have turned out > otherwise, and while I might have admired them less as > people, it doesn't stop me from admiring, for example, > Socrates, Nietzsche, or Heidegger. To use "humility" as a > core term in one's philosophy Rorty's entirely against, and > I have ambiguous feelings about how much Pirsig would be > satisfied with it. I also see nothing necessarily humble > about the four philosophical theses you listed. > > What is in the background of Arlo's dissatisfaction (and I > haven't read his responses to others in this thread closely > enough to know whether he's made this explicit himself, > but my bet is this sentiment is lurking) is that Pirsig--by > thinking his comments _would_ be treated by us as the > end of conversation rather than the beginning--ends up > treating us like children rather than as peers. He actually > (and accidentally, against his intentions) _withholds_ > respect towards us. And I think this has had a trickle > down effect, turning into a kind of Lord of the Flies > situation. Why would we stop inquiring into the Good and > Better just because our favorite spouter of wisdom > opened his mouth? Only if we treated him as a > father-figure, or a guru, would something like that happen. > Just as a child is someone that hasn't developed > ego-boundaries, to think he would end conversation about > philosophy implies that we don't know where we end and > he begins, that we don't at least implicitly know the > difference between what I differentiate as philosophy and > biography. As if we don't know the difference between > "what do you think about X?" and "when you said 'Y,' > what did you mean?" > > An implicit air of respect is not generated by adding "IMHO" > to a message. "Hey, you are a dick (in my honest opinion)." > That didn't work out at all, did it? What creates an air of > respect is one's entire manner of being in their writing. It > is conveyed at times with certain rhetorical flourishes, but > it cannot be reduced and pin-pointed to this or that > isolated sentence or phrase, just as the genius of a vision > or the personality of a person cannot be so reduced to a > series of individuated parts. It is the parts all together that > produce that odd, whole thing called a personality. It's like > asking, "why do you love me?" Any list will be deficient, > and the great poetic lists are intentionally synecdoches for > a thing that will always evade skillful individuation. That > doesn't mean we should stop individuating, just as it > doesn't mean that "IMO" can't convey something good. > > An example of how a philosopher might comport themselves > to have both personal humility and to treat others as peers > who are not to be treated with kid gloves, there's Dick > Rorty. All accounts of him personally are that he was one > of the most self-effacing people they'd ever met. And in > writing, when people in the mid-80s began describing him > as a "strong poet" (his own highest term of approbation > for the genius), he demurred and called himself a "weak > thinker," a term that came from a group of Italian > philosophers who practiced intellectual briocolage. > Following John Locke, who thought of himself as a > handmainden to Newton's scientific discoveries, Rorty liked > to say he was an underlaborer, clearing away the brush > from under the new part of the forest others had found. > And when the Philosophy Department in Munster, Germany > invited him to participate in an experiment--to be part of a > symposium on his work, except rather than the usual > invitations to other professional, established philosophers, > the papers and discussants would be culled largely from > the undergraduate population--he agreed, and the results > are published in book form. I have never heard of this > kind of experiment--undergrad journals exist, but who > wants to read them?--but there he is, writing patient > replies that treated the essays as serious criticisms, no > matter their level of quality in the large view. E. D. Hirsch, > who I just happened to mention to Arlo, taught at the > University of Virginia for a number of years with Rorty. He > said they co-taught a handful of seminars over the years, > and he figured out why students adored him. As he put it, > it was because he had a much higher tolerance for > nonsense. The way I see this personal style of > comportment in the classroom as of a piece with Rorty's > explicit philosophy (recall Pirsig's comments about > Chairman Richard McKeon in ZMM) is that genius vision > often sounds like nonsense initially. And with students, > you're supposed to be encouraging them to develop > themselves. So you treat their nonsense with respect, > as a valid entry into the "conversation of humankind," as > Rorty liked to call it, by leveling the best criticism of it > you can think of in a way that encourages the > nonsense-spouter to, not abandon the idea, but to grow > the idea. > > That's what Pirsig could have done. I absolutely respect > and understand his desire not to get involved in the MD. > It would be weird for a number of reasons. But treat us > like adults, and don't pretend you're doing us favor. If you > read in the shadows, and something occurs to you that > you could clear up (or you changed your mind), write a > little something for the Essay Forum--we do, after all, > have a whole section set up for that kind of thing (i.e. for > him). I think Pirsig's generally made a wise choice in not > engaging with us on a daily level. I respect his desire for > privacy, and that desire itself makes sense with the tenor > of his philosophy. But that doesn't go along with thinking > he's going to end the conversation. > > And I say these things as someone who owes Pirsig a > great debt of gratitude for his role in my process of > self-creation, one I will never forget, and also as > someone who owes Pirsig a debt of gratitude for a > personal kindness he was able to afford me. Pirsig is a > wonderful human being, and was somehow able to get it > on paper _and_ wrap it into a theory of the world. But > it is exactly because of those things that I treat his > ideas with the proper dignity they deserve and spend > time thinking about them and trying to get them to fit > and work and criticizing them when I don't think they do. > His are not just opinions, they are opinions I respect. > And the more one treats another's opinions with respect > and the dignity of being confronted by good, intelligent > opposing opinions, the more one generates an implicit air > of respect for divergent views. > > IMHO, > > Matt > > _________________________________________________________________ > The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3 > 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 ___ 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
