[Matt]
If I catch you right, your re-opening the case I was making against a
particular rhetorical pattern in Pirsig's writing--the avoidance of
the appearance having authority--and isolating one specific instance
of rhetorical choice: "a MoQ" or "the MoQ." Is that right?
[Arlo]
I think so. In the "a/the" distinction, it seems to me, we find the
bottom of a lot (or most, if not all) the hullaballo keeping the
dialogue about Bo's revisions trapped in the quest for interpretive
legitimacy rather than moving them to the realm of competing ideas.
Pirsig had remarked (paraphrased) that he uses the convention "THE
metaphysics of Quality says..." as a rhetorical device to avoid
saying "I, Robert Pirsig, say...", and I think within his narrative
style this is okay so long as one understands one is within a narrative genre.
Authors such as Peirce (for example) do not have to say something
like "The Triadic Semiotics says...", he can simple write ".. and I
will call it the logical interpretant...". He was not writing an
entertaining narrative, so it remains quite upfront that what you are
reading are HIS thoughts. I do understand Pirsig also tried, via the
narrative, to keep foregrounded the notion that "People should see
that it's never anything other than just one person talking from one
place in time and space and circumstance. It's never been anything
else, ever, but you can't get that across in an essay." (ZMM)
Unfortunately, I think this convention escapes those who fixate on
the "THE", and indeed has produced the opposite effect for these
people from what Pirsig intended.
Consider that regarding other philosophical systems, you never hear
anyone saying "THE Absolute Idealism says..." or "THE Pragmatism
says...". People speak generally about these philosophies to describe
general trends within those particular lines of thinking, but the
discussion is about "James' Pragmatism" or "Hegel's Idealism", etc.
For me, I think if we are to use the convention "THE metaphysics of
Quality says...", then everywhere this appears you should be able to
substitute "Robert Pirsig says..." (as he indicated this was his
narrative rhetoric). And this is not problematic, from I've seen, to
nearly all people on this list.
But it has produced befuddlement and confusion for the SOLists who
now seem to see "THE MOQ" as something "out there" of which people
"interpret" and some of those people, including Pirsig himself, can
be wrong about. This would be like someone insisting there is "THE
Pragmatism" about which James and Dewey only "interpreted", rather
than seeing that James and Dewey simply had IDEAS and it is these
IDEAS one should be contrasting, not bickering about who "interpreted
THE Pragmatism" correctly.
[Matt]
And you want to say that Pirsig should have rather stated, in light
of his comment that "there already is a metaphysics of Quality," that
he was talking about "a MoQ"?
[Arlo]
Well, not a "should" in any sense other than it seems to be a point
of consternation for the SOLists. I understand the use of the
narrative genre, and I understand that reading a "story" laden with
"I, Robert Pirsig, say..." can be kinda dull. But yes, in light of
his comment you point to, it makes much more sense to see him
offering "A metaphysics of Quality".
[Matt]
That's interesting: if Pirsig had rather always stated "A metaphysics
of Quality says that...," he would have rhetorically created a field
of inquiry...Instead of rhetorically creating a system, he could have
created a field.
[Arlo]
I hadn't thought it this to this level, but I think this is correct.
[Matt]
I'm not sure how much it matters, though. I can't wrap my head
around imagining whether it would have been better because the
problem is still acolytes: people will still defend Pirsig's version
as the best one because they believe it to be so, and people will
still rightly fight about just what Pirsig's version was that is better.
[Arlo]
Well, maybe not, but I think such acolyting would be exposed clearly.
It's kind of a slight-of-hand to keep saying "THE metaphysics of
Quality says..." to masquerade that whatever Pirsig said is
unassailable truth. It has the "air" of authoritative legitimacy,
doesn't it? If someone kept writing "Robert Pirsig says... Robert
Pirsig says... Robert Pirsig says...", we'd see that for what it is.
But the same person writing "the MOQ says... the MOQ says... the MOQ
says..." this is kinda placed behind a veil.
And, oddly, as I said before it is the people in the most
disagreement with Pirsig that seem to solely concerned with tying
themselves to legitimacy based on what "he said". Quite frankly, I
simply do NOT understand why this ("A metaphysics of Quality that
holds the intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of
Quality that considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns"?)
is so baffling to the SOLists. Doesn't it capture their position
entirely? Doesn't it put their argument of firm, valid, argumentative
ground? Doesn't it make the focus the Quality of the ideas at hand
rather than "who is 'intepreting' Pirsig correctly"?
And a sidenote, this is why I think Bo's latest slight-of-hand
acronym, "SIM", reflects his muddied thinking. As I pointed out to
him, it makes "Pirsig a weak interpreter of Pirsig's ideas". This is
just absurd.
[Matt]
But I can't help but think that the underlying tendency to be an
acolyte cuts across such rhetorical barriers, because every MoQ
begins with an act of interpretation: just what _is_ the fundamental
idea of Quality.
[Arlo]
Sure. As you say there will always be acolytes. But if we move the
dialogue to recognize that Pirsig's metaphysics is HIS interpretation
of Quality, and Bo's metaphysics is HIS interpretation of Quality
(formulated as a critical response to Pirsig's ideas), then I can't
help but this we are all on better ground. But this does, correctly,
place "interpretation" where it belongs, on the person considering
Quality, rather than on "what Pirsig said".
Of course, maybe I'm being too much the optimist here.
[Matt]
If you consider yourself to be a Pirsigian, it will be because you
have a distinct take on what the metonym "Pirsig" stands for, and if
it doesn't in some way hook up to a correct apprehension of
_something_ in the writings of an author named "Pirsig," then why on
earth call yourself a Pirsigian who's working out a metaphysics of Quality?
[Arlo]
This is interesting to me, because how I see it this one way of
framing a trajectory into a community of practice. I don't,
personally, know anyone who calls themselves a "Peircian" or a
"Jungian" in any sense other than to forge commonality with a
community they are hoping to be part of. When used outside of this
particular convention, I don't see any value in such labeling. In
other words, I see it as shorthand to tell a group "Hey, I think this
person's ideas have a lot of value and I agree with most of them",
the community (based on its unique structures) then accepts or
rejects this shorthand. In your example, Ham may be rejected
as "Pirsigian" here, but in another forum not specifically about
Pirsig the community may see his and Pirsig's ideas as "close enough"
to allow the label.
I know this is a wild tangent, but I guess I see such "branding" as
nearly wholly social, maybe quite valuable in that realm, but of no
real value intellectually. When someone is battling for a label ("I
AM a Pirsigian, damn you, I AM!"), its usually a sign they have
nothing of importance to say, and are only trying to "fit in" or
attain social capital in some way.
[Matt]
If you already can't distinguish between biography and philosophy,
nothing a writer can do will help.
[Arlo]
Fair enough. Its evident that all this is flying way over Bo's head.
I get attacked for "stiffleing free speech" and "demanding there is
only one correct way to think", which I guess shows clearly this
inability to make this biography/philosophy distinction. That
optimism thing on my part again, I guess.
[Matt]
p.s. "Pirsig Institutionalized" is in the moq.org Forum, and there's
a link in my rightnav bar on my website
(pirsigaffliction.blogspot.com), and also a page with links to the
essays with recent commentary under the link at the top of the page,
"Moq.org Essays."
[Arlo]
I recommend it.
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
