PS: If there is some antipathy toward Pirsig on Auxier's part, you can certainly see why in that passage I quoted from Lila! It just about NAILs the academic know-it-all attitude to the wall, which admittedly, Auxier generates from his pores. But I still like the guy a lot and appreciate y'all's help in reconciling two men whom I appreciate.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:14 AM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Adrie, > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Adrie Kintziger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > But this aside, and adopting the term for metaforical purposes ,Pirsig >> is a beachcomber in the intellectual landscape ,beachcombing the giant, >> and the world in wich we live, to show wat was laid bare by the storm so >> to >> speak. >> > > > So you agree with Auxier that Pirsig derived his MoQ entirely from > Whitehead? To tell you the truth, I don't mind at all, it's just a shock > to find out after all these years. > > Here is our conversation (mine and Auxier's) up to date. > > ----------- my email to Auxier: > > Randy, > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Randall Auxier <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Zero. Chicago wasn't analytical at that time, and McKeon despised >> analytical philosophy. That day and age at U Chicago was 100% process >> philosophy, both in the Phil. dept and in every committee, including the >> Divinity School. The list of process-professors is endless. Zero. >> >> RA >> > > > There are some pertinent biographical facts you're ignoring, Randy. > You're thinking "he'd have to be crazy to be in Chicago and not have heard > of Whitehead" What you're forgetting is that he was crazy, and got so > crazy he had to be locked up and given electroshock therapy where he had to > reconstruct his earlier work by looking at notes he'd kept. His story > isn't made up although his story isn't so much a biography as it is a > novel - it's a novel about a man trying to reconstruct himself, which is > hard to wrap your mind around (is this first person or third?) Paranoid > schizophrenics can't be judged on the basis of what a normal person or > student would do. Pirsig passed over American Theistic philosophers (or > inasmuch as he'd heard) like Whitehead and James. His goal was blending > eastern philosophy with western, as the title of his best selling book > illustrates. THAT was the direction at which the old zen archer aimed his > intellect. > > But whatever he was aiming at, he completely forgot in the aftermath of > electro-convulsive therapy. > > I offer a few pertinent comments from Pirsig, to illustrate my point that > he wasn't much of a philosophy student. > > Taken from Robert Pirsig's commentary on Frederick Copleston's 'History > of Philosophy', in a personal note to Anthony McWatt, who has a Ph.D in the > MoQ, from Oxford (although ant isn't much of a philosophologist either - he > was an art major) > > January 2000 > > *Dear Anthony McWatt,* > > *You asked in one of your letters how the MOQ compares with late 19th > Century idealism. The answer that follows copies part of Frederick > Copleston’s summary of that group in Volume 8 of his “History of > Philosophy” and inserts comparisons the MOQ. As I’ve said before, > philosophology isn’t my field, and I assume that Copleston’s understanding > of the positions of the various idealists is correct. Certainly it’s better > than mine, and using it and trusting it filters out a lot of red herring.* > > Ok, right there. The only thing he knows about British Idealism is what > he reads by another man. How could this happen? Furthermore, he expresses > absolute surprise at what Coppleston describes of Bradley, but then, how > many philosophers read Bradley? So understandable to an extent. But in > Lila he discovers William James(!) Like, for the first time? Sort of. > LIke with his blinders taken off by his own intellectual evolution. Which > makes it more interesting to me. > > he explains his overall attitude in Lila, describing a boat trip, via the > old Eerie Lackawanna canal system to the Hudson and New York City: > > "One of the disadvantages of this boat life is you don't get to use public > libraries. > But he had found a bookstore with an old two-volume biography of William > James that should hold him for a while. Nothing like some good old > "philosophology" to put someone to sleep. He took the top volume out of the > canvas bag, climbed into the sleeping bag and looked at the book's cover > for a while. > > -26- > > He liked that word "philosophology." It was just right. It had a nice > dull, cumbersome, superfluous appearance that exactly fitted its subject > matter, and he'd been using it for some time now. > > Philosophology is to philosophy as musicology is to music, or as art > history and art > appreciation are to art, or as literary criticism is to creative writing. > It's a derivative, secondary field, a sometimes parasitic growth that likes > to think it controls its host by analyzing and intellectualizing its > host's behavior. > > Literature people are sometimes puzzled by the hatred many creative > writers have for them. Art historians can't understand the venom either. He > supposed the same was true with musicologists but he didn't know enough > about them. But philosophologists don't have this problem at all because > the philosophers who would normally condemn them are a null-class. They > don't exist. Philosophologists, calling themselves philosophers, are just > about all there are. > > You can imagine the ridiculousness of an art historian taking his students > to museums, having them write a thesis on some historical or technical > aspect of what they see there, and after a few years of this giving them > degrees that say they are accomplished artists. They've never held a brush > or a mallet and chisel in their hands. All they know is art history. > Yet, ridiculous as it sounds, this is exactly what happens in the > philosophology that calls itself philosophy. Students aren't expected to > philosophize. Their instructors would hardly know what to say if they did. > They'd probably compare the student's writing to Mill or Kant or somebody > like that, find the student's work grossly inferior, and tell him to > abandon it. > > As a student Phædrus had been warned that he would "come a cropper" if he > got too attached to any philosophical ideas of his own. Literature, > musicology, art history and philosophology thrive in academic institutions > because they are easy to teach. You just Xerox something some philosopher > has said and make the students discuss it, make them memorize it, and then > flunk them at the end of the quarter if they forget it. > > Actual painting, music composition and creative writing are almost > impossible to teach and so they barely get in the academic door. True > philosophy doesn't get in at all. Philosophologists often have an interest > in creating philosophy but, as philosophologists, they subordinate it, much > as a literary scholar might subordinate his own interest in creative > writing. Unless they are exceptional they don't consider the creation of > philosophy their real line of work. > As an author, Phædrus had been putting off the philosophology, partly > because he didn't like it, and partly to avoid putting a philosophological > cart before the philosophical horse. Philosophologists not only start by > putting the cart first; they usually forget the horse entirely. They say > first you should read what all the great philosophers of history have said > and then you should decide what you want to say. > > The catch here is that by the time you've read what all the great > philosophers of history have said you'll be at least two hundred years old. > A second catch is that these great philosophers are very persuasive people > and if you read them innocently you may be carried away by what they say > and never see what they missed." > > Lila - page 26 > > > jc: > > So Professor, are you still sure there is a ZERO chance that Pirsig didn't > understand or read Whitehead? If he did, then he's perpetrating one of the > most elaborate frauds I've ever known. > > I don't know if this subject greatly interests you, but it sure does me. > > --------Auxier's reply: > > Zero. You don't understand what actually happens in graduate seminars in > philosophy, such as McKeon's. I have spent a lifetime both doing this and > listening to it. You don't understand how students talk on their way into > and out of class, or what they discuss on the days between. The entire > heady scene of graduate school, which Pirsig describes quite nicely in Zen, > includes all kinds of things that won't show up in books and letters. I > assure you, he knew and heard about and probably read Whitehead while at > Chicago. If his memory was wiped out, that is hardly evidence against what > I'm saying. It helps my case. He relieved these ideas from the recesses of > a damaged cerebral cortex. Nothing unusual about that. > > -------- > > So, he beachcombed Whitehead's ideas and presented them in novel form, > that's your claim Adrie? I'm not trying to pin you down or "nail" you in > any way. But it's just such a revelation to me. > > thanks, > > John C. > > > > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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
