Strawman alert. Who suggested Pirsig wasn't careful (even skilled and poetic) with his words? On 14 Feb 2013 17:57, "david buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ian said to ARLO: > Constraining - not necessarily - not constraining "within" any boundaries. > A pedant can choose to work within dictionary definitions of the words used > and the formal syntax of the sentences composed - but any good writer / > communicator - like Pirsig does NOT do this. > > > Arlo replied: > Really? How did you understand a single word in his books? Seems to me > that he "relied" a great deal on shared definitions and syntax (can you > point out ONE sentence in his books that did not follow a culturally-shared > syntax?). "Dictionary definitions", by the way, is a ridiculous straw man > (and I'm a little surprised you use this). Of course the "meanings" of > individual "words" (and the shared use syntax) evolve over time, who has > ever suggested otherwise? The point is not that such-and-such a word is > forever etched in iron, but that we can never "think" outside "language", > any more than we can "breathe" in a "vacuum" (aka, "our intellectual > description of nature is ALWAYS culturally defined" [emphasis added]). (By > the way, if you respond to this by implying I deny a pre-intellectual > experience or pre-language awareness, I will reach through the nether and > slap you. ;-)) > > > > Ian replied to Arlo's reply: > Dictionary definition - just two word short-hand for your 10 line > paragraph ... but yes OK. So ... that evolution involves people using the > language beyond existing understood explicit meanings - implying, > glimpsing, evoking alternative possibilities. Obviously anyone (me > included) "starts" from existing understood definitions - but they're > enabling tools as you said - we don't "end" with that, only a pedant > involved in some tight logical construction is constrained by those. > > > dmb says: > I'm totally with Arlo on this. I think it's safe to say that Pirsig, the > rhetorician, definitely cares about words and he uses the language with > great skill. He's an artist and words are his medium of choice. Even > further, we can see that this concern for language reflected in the content > of his thought - most conspicuously in his defense of the Sophists and his > a attack on the dialecticians. And in the second book he frames thought and > language in terms of social and intellectual static quality. > > "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." > (Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.) > > "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't > any metaphysics." (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.) > > I wonder if my complaints about Marsha's incoherent and contradictory > statements have anything to do with this line of defense, Ian? I suspect > so. It's true that I have been complaining for a long time. This is how I > put it about a year and a half ago.... > > "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason but Marsha "reasons" with her > own private definitions. In her world - and what a lonely place it must be > - static patterns are not static and they are not patterned. In open > defiance of all the dictionaries, she imagines them as ever-changing > clouds. To torture and abuse the english language in this way is to remove > oneself from reason and intelligibility, to cut oneself off from > communication with others and can only end in confusion, isolation and > unhappiness." > > Now, has anyone ever said - or even implied - that dictionary definitions > are the end point for the MOQ or anything else. No, of course not. This is > a straw man, one that interprets the basic of demands of intellectual > quality (coherence, logical consistency, etc.) as something that's beneath > them. The implied claim, it seems, is that the contradictory use of terms > is not a very basic failing but quite the opposite. It is above and beyond > words, Ian claims, because "evolution involves people using the language > beyond existing understood explicit meanings". > > You see how that works? The use of contradictory word salads isn't a > problem or an error to be criticized, it's above all that stupid static > stuff like definitions and metaphysics. Only a pedant is interesting in > stuff like that, right? Nope, I really that that's just ego-driven nonsense > wherein those accused of very basic errors reply with a transparently > self-serving dismissal of the criticism. > > Another weirdly bogus response to these complaints is to pretend that the > basic demands of logic and language are something I've invented and > arbitrarily imposed on poor Marsha. "I don't care what you think," she'll > say, or "that's just your opinion". Then, when I quote Pirsig, an > encyclopedia or dictionary to show that it's not just my opinion, she'll > pretend the textual evidence is meaningless too. What could be more > unreasonable? > > This anti-intellectualism would make a certain amount of sense IF one > equates the MOQ's intellectual level with SOM. I suspect that's one of the > main (and bogus) planks in Marsha's negative stance toward static > intellectual quality. So, instead of getting an expanded rationality, one > that puts DQ at the center, we get intellect construed as a contemptible > prison. > > It's really sad that hardly anyone sees that this is not only wrong but > totally undermines Pirsig's project of repairing the intellect. The idea is > to improve the way we think by making rationality subordinate to Quality, > not to trash rationality or reject it. Of all the place in the world where > one should take care of words and ideas, a philosophical discussion group > has got to be on the top of the list. That's just common sense. > > Does anyone really think they are too deep, too mystical or too special to > be bothered with the basic demands of intellectual quality? You're too > evolved to be bothered with definitions? That sounds like the ego is doing > the talking, not intellect. > > > > > 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
