On Nov 9, dmb posted an article from the New York Times opinion page:
"When Socrates Met Phaedrus: Eros in Philosophy," by Simon Critchley.
Andre:
Subsequently dmb states that:
Critchley's article should be of interest to anyone in a Pirsig
discussion group - for obvious reasons.
Not being much of a philosopher, let alone a scholar there is one thing
(apart from others) that sprang to my attention when reading the
article, especially when Critchley says the following:
'We might want to say that a philosophical dialogue is more like a case
study in psychotherapy, which also sometimes fail. Such case studies
might be exemplary and thereby exert a general claim, as the
"Phaedrus"//unquestionably does, but each dialogue is a singular and
highly specific case.'
Phaedrus as a 'case study'. Interesting, especially when one considers
that Pirsig intended LILA to be conceived as a 'case-book in philosophy'
(Anthony's PhD, p44).
'Does Lila have Quality' is the koan, its central question, and
Critchley (as well as Pirsig of course) argues that she does have
Quality (or rather Quality has her) because the (proper) philosophical
approach, i.e the conditions which rhetoric must meet in order to have
any metaphysical relevance/foundation at all are met in the Phaedrus.
Critchley quotes Socrates:
'On meeting someone he will be able to discern what he is like and
make clear to himself that the person actually standing in front of
him is of just this particular sort of character...that he must now
apply speeches of such-and-such a kind in this particular way in
order to secure conviction about such-and-such an issue. When he has
learned all this...then, and only then, will he have finally
mastered the art well and completely.'
Isn't this a wonderful reminder of Dusenberry's anthropological approach
learning about the Chippewa- Cree of Montana, i.e. the participant
observer approach? Anthony, in his PhD correctly, I think, sees this
approach as epitomizing the MoQ ethos because it is more 'value
friendly'. This opposes the current, all too general practice, of the so
called 'objective' approach considered more 'scientific' because the
answers to its preconceived, scientifically worked out questions are
quantifiable and fit very well in multicolored tables and easily
constructed recommendations for 'action'. No wonder Pirsig calls this
approach 'just rubbish' because one only needs to look around one's
street, listen to the radio or watch the evening news to see that it
simply does not work. In fact, is sinful (original meaning: missing the
point)our dominant Western ignorance thereby adding to the karmic dump
which is piling ever so high, above the heads of not only our children
but our children's children's children.
Many, though fortunately not all, approaches fail to take value into
account. That is 'empirical experience'. Why? Because, and I still hear
this nonsense on radio, TV and relatives, because this 'type' of
experience is considered 'subjective' and has little to do with
'objective reality'!
The MoQ, as a 'contrarian' metaphysics rises above all of similar past
efforts. Though I say 'contrarian' it isn't really. It is literally a
continuation of main-stream American philosophy set in motion by the
likes of Peirce, Dewey and James.
I could go on but won't. I happen to be born in a country where our
exalted prime minister, as a way of getting out of the financial crisis,
calls on people to 'buy a car' or 'buy a house'...and where president
Poetin is welcomed in The Hague (this means trade and money) and the
Dalai Lama shunned (this means wisdom). All cultures have their blind spots.
The Critchley article opened a few doors for me not the least of which
is the many-layered meaning of 'Phaedrus'.
Thanks dmb for bringing the article to my attention.
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
