Hi dmb,
Ahhh yes - Rorty. I’m sure you’ve seen all the latest news about him… http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/books/richard-rortys-1998-book-suggested-election-2016-was-coming.html I’ve ordered the book as it appears to have been very astute analysis. It’s a shame we can’t discuss politics much here as the MOQ provides such a great language to discuss it. Sent with Unibox > On Nov 23, 2016, at 5:05 AM, david <dmbucha...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > David Harding said to dmb: > > > I do wonder if you agree with the words you write when you’re continually > referring to what ‘Pirsig says'. Do you agree with Pirsig? What’s your > opinion? > > > > > > dmb says: > > > Yes, I agree with Pirsig in particular and with Classical Pragmatism in > general. I like to quote Pirsig in order to present and explain the ideas > rather than defend them. It seems to me that nearly every "critic" of the MOQ > ends up attacking ideas that are NOT actually features of the MOQ but rather > products of the critic's misunderstanding. Since there's no point in > defending a distorted idea that Pirsig never endorsed, it's better to answer > the critic by offering an undistorted version of that idea. In this case, for > example, Tuukka was operating with conspicuously incorrect conceptions of > "dialectic" and "rhetoric". Pirsig's own comments on the topic serve as the > perfect antidote to poison, I think. > > > > > > > > > David Harding said: > > > On this point I’m not so sure but in your first paragraph you write that a > traditional understanding of rhetoric and sophistry is fine as there are so > many hucksters out there. But on this I disagree. I would argue that it’s > precisely because of our traditional understanding of these terms that there > are so many hucksters and deceivers out there. ... > > > > > > dmb says: > > > Think of it this way: People use the term "vandalism" to describe pointless > destruction and that's find because there are people who destroy thing for no > particular reason but we can also speak historically about the Germanic tribe > called "Vandals" and make a case that the conventional term is slanderous > toward actual Vandals. In the same way, we can use "sophistry" to describe > Trump or talk radio hosts but still make a case that this is slanderous > toward the actual Sophists of ancient Greece. I mean, if you're talking to > Pirsig and he says you're a great rhetorician then you should know that you > have not been insulted. Quite the opposite. In that context, you would have > been very flattered. But it you're down at the local bar and some dude > accuses you of sophistry, then you have been insulted (and I would not mind > meeting the kind people who hang out there because that's my kind of insult). > > > > > > > > > David Harding said: > > > What’s missed by Socrates is that he, and not the Sophists, is being the > deceptive one by claiming he doesn’t know what is good. That’s why I think > it’s our current day Metaphysics, built upon Socrates assumption, that > creates this deceptive attitude. One in which the words we speak can be > meaningless so who really cares about them anyway? And Quality forget that - > what’s that? Furthermore, how can you be honest and speak to the wholeness of > experience without perceiving and speaking directly of its Quality? And how > better to continually do this than with a Metaphysics which points out that > all things are built upon it, and so are it? But you were probably just > giving a throwaway line and I’m reading too much into this but figure it’s > worth a chat anyway :) > > > > > > dmb says: > > > It's not clear what you mean, David, but I'll give an indirect answer and > just hope that some of it addresses your concern. > > > Socrates actually ends up looking pretty good. That short epigraph from the > front of ZAMM - Do we need anyone to tell us what's Good and what's not Good? > - that line is put into the mouth of Socrates (in Plato's Phaedrus). It's > really Plato himself - or rather Platonism in general - that is so much at > odds with the MOQ. This isn't just because of the vicious slander against the > Sophists but also against the view that Truth is eternal and separate from > the world as it appears to us finite mortals. By contrast, Pirsig says that > Man is the measure of all things, a participant in the creation of all > things, and that means that there is no eternal Truth beyond appearances but > only humanly constructed truths within a human context. As William James put > it, 'The trail of the human serpent is over all.' This anti-Platonism is a > common feature of Pragmatism, the meaning of which has been enriched by > reading people like William James, John Dewey, and even Richard Rorty. > > > > > > "At the same time as I was worrying about this tension within Platonism – and > within any form of what Dewey had called 'the quest for certainty' – I was > also worrying about the familiar problem of how one could possibly get a > noncircular justification of any debatable stand on any important issue. The > more philosophers I read, the clearer it seemed that each of them could carry > their views back to first principles which were incompatible with the first > principles of their opponents, and that none of them ever got to that fabled > place 'beyond hypotheses'. There seemed to be nothing like a neutral > standpoint from which these alternative first principles could be evaluated. > But if there were no such standpoint, then the whole idea of 'rational > certainty', and the whole Socratic-Platonic idea of replacing passion by > reason, seemed not to make much sense." -- Richard Rorty, 1992 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> On Nov 21, 2016, at 9:47 AM, david <dmbucha...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hello, MOQers: >> >> >> >> >> >> I suppose everyone knows that people are suspicious of the emotional >> language in "rhetoric" and consider "sophistry" to be a form of manipulative >> deception. The conventional meaning isn't likely to change anytime soon and >> that's fine because there is empty speech and there are plenty of >> manipulative deceivers that deserve the name. In telling the story of >> philosophy Pirsig turns those meanings upside down. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> “Plato’s hatred of the rhetoricians was part of a much larger struggle in >> which the reality of the Good, represented by the Sophists, and the reality >> of the True, represented by the dialecticians, were engaged in a huge >> struggle for the future mind of man.” -- Robert Pirsig >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> As the story is usually told, rhetoric is too emotional to be considered >> serious about the truth. Our feelings have no bearing on the truth, this >> story goes, and clear thinking is about cool logic and putting one's >> passions aside. But, Pirsig says, this story doesn't make as much sense as >> it used to. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> “It’s been necessary since before the time of Socrates to reject the >> passions, the emotions, in order to free the rational mind for an >> understanding of nature’s order which was as yet unknown. Now it’s time to >> further an understanding of nature’s order by reassimilating those passions >> which were originally fled from. The passions, the emotions, the affective >> domain of man’s consciousness, are a part of nature’s order too. The central >> part.” — Robert Pirsig >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At certain points in the re-telling and inversion of this old slanderous >> story Pirsig is downright angry about it. He finally realizes that the >> Platonic demand for passionless dialectic has the effect of excluding >> Quality, which is the whole thing for Pirsig. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> “Phædrus’ mind races on and on and then on further, seeing now at last a >> kind of evil thing, an evil deeply entrenched in himself, which pretends to >> try and understand love and beauty and truth and wisdom but whose real >> purpose is never to understand them, whose real purpose is always to usurp >> them and enthrone itself. Dialectic - the usurper. That is what he sees. The >> parvenu, muscling in on all that is Good and seeking to contain it and >> control it." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And he's feeling triumphant about this discovery because it turns out that >> the Sophists weren't demagogues, hucksters, or confidence men. They were >> teaching Quality and they were teaching it the same way he had been teaching >> it to his student in Montana. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Lightning hits! Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists were >> teaching! Not ethical relativism. Not pristine 'virtue.' But areté. >> Excellence. Dharma! Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before >> form. Before mind and matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been >> absolute. Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching Quality, >> and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And this re-telling of ancient history is part of the book's central >> project, which is a root expansion of rationality. The criticisms of >> rationality that he offers almost always involve the problem of objective >> truth. Value-free science has got to go, he says. Attitudes of objectivity >> make our thinking stiff and narrow and entail a denigration of subjectivity >> so that Quality is JUST what you like, is JUST your opinion or assessment of >> some thing or other. But this is part of that same old slander against the >> Sophists and rhetoricians, Pirsig says, and our form of rationality would >> actually be vastly improved by putting Quality at the cutting edge of all >> experience and all thought. Quality is right there at the very roots of our >> thinking and by including Quality our thinking is broadened and deepened and >> enriched by the inclusion of the emotional and aesthetic quality that >> pervades our thought regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not. You >> gotta have a feel for the work, he says, and that's not just about fixing >> motorcycles. It's about everything. All the time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> For Pirsig, "rhetoric" simply means excellence in thought and speech. >> Rhetoric is truer than objective truth because it includes the heart as well >> the head, so to speak. To talk truthfully will mean that the claim is >> supported by evidence and its expression logically sound, just as before, >> but that's no longer good enough. Speaking truthfully also means that you >> care about the truth, have feelings about that truth and maybe your >> expression shows the power or the beauty of that truth. To move or persuade >> another is not a sinister manipulation or a deception. It's a good thing and >> we should love it somebody does it right. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > moq.org > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and provides > a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current paradigms > allow > > > >> >> >> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> >> > > MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > moq.org > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and provides > a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current paradigms > allow > > > >> >> >> moq.org >> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and provides >> a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current paradigms >> allow >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > moq.org > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and provides > a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current paradigms > allow > > > >> >> >> >> > > 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 Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > moq.org > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and provides > a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current paradigms > allow > > > > > > David Harding said to > 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
