Hello everyone On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve said: > Pirsig has described freedom as a matter of perception while every > other philosopher that I have ever read has described it as a matter > of will. You don't see that as interesting? That's not worth thinking > about? > > Matt: > I've been accused of distorting "what Pirsig says" off and on for about > a decade, and as I have perhaps a more liberal sense of what it > means to legitimately appropriate a thinker, or extend their thinking, > I thought I might comment that everyone might pause and consider > their own sense of what is a legitimate mode of "translating" from > "what Pirsig says" to "what Pirsig really means."
Dan: That's a good point... we use our own sense to translate not only what Robert Pirsig says but what the world says. But when it comes down to what it all "really" means, I am unsure there's a whole lot we can say. For example, in the NYT interview, RMP says that his thinking has evolved and now he is more inclined to look for the Dynamic within the static. My own sense is that as we grow older we all are more inclined towards the comfort of static quality. The disorder of Dynamic Quality is for the young, the rebellious, the revolutionaries. So over time, what RMP says in ZMM and in LILA will change as our perceptions (our sense of the world) change. Now, it seems (to me) that there ought to be a legitimate way of interpreting the MOQ even though no one seems to agree on just how. There is more to it than "what Pirsig says" or "what Pirsig really means," though. I like to think we're here to work that out in our own way using our personal evolutionary histories, juxtaposing those notions against the ideas other like-minded folk. The real problem arises when we come across those people who's thinking is so diametrically opposed to ours that we become angry, or worse, we ignore them completely. There has to be a sense of commonality that holds a group together. Here, that sense is all the members having read ZMM and LILA. Of course there is no way to enforce that rule and there are and have been members who clearly ignore it. On the other hand, there are those who have read the books and yet for some inexplicable reason seem unable to grasp the nuances contained therein. I've come to suspect that some debates like the free will vs determinism debate are beyond resolution, so we need to look past them despite our differences and forge ahead in other areas more amenable to agreement. I don't think that means we've given up so much as it means that we see more clearly that there are certain kinds of questions that don't exist within the context of the MOQ... they are without value. >Matt: > If we try too hard to make sure we agree with Pirsig, that's no good > for either us or Pirsig. Precision of formulation _has_ to be an > important consideration in philosophy, because if it wasn't, we could > just first assume that everyone agrees with us, and then pick out > where it seems "close enough," or just willfully pound them into the > shape we want. > > Sometimes we do that. Sometimes that's okay. Sometimes we just > use and abuse. But part of the mission of the MD seems to be a > self-conscious awareness of what Pirsig's intentions were, whether > or not they produced something you think is good or not. It's okay > to think Pirsig misstepped his own formulation of the heart of his > philosophy. What we need (and what, e.g., Bo Skutvik apparently > never had) is an awareness of when Pirsig ends and you begin. > One way to formulate this is to say a particular phrasing that Pirsig > used isn't important to the point he was trying to make. The center > of gravity for the heart of his philosophy is somewhere else. I think > that's legitimate, but it has to be in the light of what taking seriously > that formulation _would mean_ to the rest of his philosophy: it > would mean patiently taking the time to explore the consequences > of the actual words he uses. > > For example, I think the heart of Pirsig's philosophy might be more > massively augmented by taking the "care passages" of ZMM more > seriously, in the direction that Steve has marked out as the liberal > viewpoint of extending circles of concern, and for which he is > currently concerned that Pirsig may not approach enough. I am > less concerned, and think Pirsig would fair well in an extrapolation. Dan: I don't think it is as important to agree with RMP as it is to form an understanding with what he's saying. There are and have been contributors who tend to be very persuasive but they lead others astray when it comes to understanding what the MOQ is about. Whether it's a matter of them overlaying RMP's words with their own erroneous thinking or outright claiming he is wrong, there doesn't seem to be any constructive value in such dialogue... not if a person is genuinely interested in furthering their knowledge about the MOQ. And it's very difficult to undo the damage... next to impossible... even words from RMP himself seem to matter. Matt: > But the one thing I would not be is as blithe as John is in asserting > that Pirsig is all about love and empathy. Steve seems to be right > when he suggests that we should think through the fact that "care" > is left behind somewhat, and "love" doesn't seem to come up at all. > It's not exactly that John is wrong, but he seems to be lacking in > that self-consciousness. And it could easily be repaired by simply > taking those apparent facts into account, something along the lines > of, "That's true, he doesn't talk about care or love a lot. But if we > move the center of gravity of our understanding of Quality to 'care,' > then there's a sense in which Pirsig is suggesting that evaluative > behavior--the only behavior that exists--is in fact equated, the same > as, a fluctuating circle of concern. I.e., low quality is the same as > judging that you _don't_ care about something. Dan: The whole reason the narrator in ZMM learned motorcycle maintenance was a low-quality lack of caring on the part of a mechanic. John Sutherland had no interest whatsoever in maintaining his bike and that lack of caring is what drove the narrator to explore the relationship between classical and romantic kinds of understanding. Of course, in LILA, Phaedrus abandons this metaphysical split in favor of Dynamic/static understanding yet I'm not convinced that was entirely a good move metaphysically speaking. Our John Carl seems much more of a romantic than does a person like David Buchanan... or myself, for that matter. I like to take things apart... to see how they work. The symbiosis of all the parts fascinates me... the way each part on a motorcycle has to function just so for the machine to perform properly. And that function translates into writing as well, I think. At least I work at making each word tell. It isn't always easy but nothing of value is. Matt: >And, additionally, > the reason why Pirsig avoided extensive reflection on care, and > particularly about love, might be a reaction-formation to the hippies. > Even as Pirsig wrote, he sensed something a little off about the > hippie movement, something to beware rhetorically of, and by the > 90s it became obvious that if he wanted to bridge-build at the > cultural level between conservatives and liberals, it would be with the > word 'value' (which conservatives seem to have co-opted and think > liberals had abdicated) and not 'love,' which conservatives still were > reacting to in the hippie context. To formulate philosophical > propositions with 'love' at the center would move too close to the > 'soup of sentiments' that he wanted to avoid." Taking things into > account explicitly, being self-conscious, seems to be central to > philosophical articulation. Dan: I always thought that is why RMP wrote novels and not philosophy books although I realize both ZMM and LILA can be seen as philosophy. To me though, the story each conveys has always been more important but then again I'm a storyteller myself and not a philosopher. And as I grow older I do find my writings moving more towards a romantic bent rather than a classical one. >Matt: > I don't think Pirsig, the rhetorician, did not choose his words carefully > most of the time. Taking seriously his own formulations will tell you > where he is revolutionary and not. Taking seriously Pirsig's verbiage > is how you pay homage to his thought, particularly if you want to say > something slightly different. Thinking things through, patiently and > carefully, isn't the antithesis of Dynamic Quality. Dan: Yes I agree. We have to think things through... study them carefully... in order to know how to proceed with enhancing without destroying the thought behind RMP's works. >Matt: > And sometimes we should relinquish the thought that we don't have > anything new to learn about Pirsig. Sometimes we might treat the > MD like a laboratory for testing hypotheses, testing an idea for its > consequences, even if we aren't sold on the idea yet. You don't yell > at a scientist if he tests a new liquid in a beaker and it blows up. If > we had more of what Emerson called a "youth of mind," and > approached each other in that spirit more often, I think we'd learn a > lot more about Pirsig and ourselves. Dan: I think that's right... still, in approaching such hypotheses we should keep in mind that we are more than likely wrong and not cling obsessively to such notions. Only by making mistakes can we hope to prosper in the reaping of knowledge and evolve into someone better able to cope with knowing reality is one percent hope and ninety nine percent uncertainty. Thank you, Dan 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
