[John]
Is Pirsig about learning one route, and one route only? If what we are
supposed to take from his work, is memorizing words and parroting them exactly,
then I guess I've really been wrong about ZAMM and Lila.
[Arlo]
Any philosophy forum is open to (or should be open to) what I call "learned
disagreement". Philosophy itself, as a tradition, is a long narrative of
thesis, disagreement, affirmation, reconstruction and extension. Pirsig, in
this larger narrative, presents a "learned disagreement" with the Aristotelian
tradition and how it has shaped cultural attitudes. His work is, in many ways,
an extension of the works of James and Dewey and other pragmatists. It is not
'copy', but it is not a soliloquy in a vacuum either.
But (as DMB already pointed out numerous times), disagreement is predicated on
an understanding of what you are, ostensibly, disagreeing with. This is why I
refer to it as "learned disagreement". In order to form a critical response to
Aristotle, Pirsig had to really understand what Aristotle was saying. Here is
where you 'disagreements' fall down. You keep presenting disagreement with
Pirsig in ways that demonstrate you really don't understand Pirsig. Your
question to Dan "where is art?" is an astounding example of this. Aside from
the fact that Pirsig answers this very question, is the simplest of terms ("Art
is high-quality endeavor."), it ignores the entire endeavor, to unify a duality
caused by the philosophical tradition he is criticizing. Art is not separate
from, is not in opposition with, is not contrary to, intellectual endeavors.
Art is as much a part of scientific practice as it is painting and drumming.
Art is every much 'high-quality' motorcycle repair as it is
'high-quality' clay sculpting.
Recently you've stated that "the 4th level gives birth to the 3rd level". This
is a more clear disagreement with Pirsig, as you're altering Pirsig's
evolutionary model. But this also changes the notion of hierarchical moral
superiority, unless this is a clear statement that social level patterns are
morally superior to intellectual level patterns. Otherwise, you aren't really
talking about an evolutionary morality (and certainly not Pirsig's MOQ).
In any case, John, as has been said many, many, many times, you are certainly
free to disagree with Pirsig. You are certainly free to make a case for why
your reconstruction is a better metaphysics than Pirsig's. I disagree with
Pirsig on a few points. No one here is demanding you 'parrot' his words, that's
just a fiction you're creating. But, those here who point out your
disagreements are based in misunderstanding are absolutely correct in pointing
this out.
As I tell students I work with, the simplest progression is "A said B. A was
wrong about B. This is why A was wrong about B. I propose C instead of B.
Here's why C is better." Each step in this progression is subject to
examination for accuracy, and you can't conflate criticism with one step as
criticism for another (or all).
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
