Matt and all: I should be working on my paper at the moment, but I gotta be naughty just long enough to make a point...
DMB had said: It relied on the assumption that reality was more or less apparent to the eye. This sort of positivism more or less trusted the senses, it is that narrow brand of sensory empiricism which is discussed and rejected in Lila. Matt replied: Ocular metaphors? Sound familiar, DMB? I think use of ocular metaphors, and the creation of appearance/reality distinctions, in the philosophical landscape is the right trail to tumble down. But of course I think that, that's the tale Rorty tells.... dmb now says: So many of our debates have revolved around this point. Maybe now I can put my finger on the problem in a way that you can see clearly. (Please pardon my occular metaphor there.) It seems that you have been riding the Rorty rail so long and have been so convinced that he is doing basically the same thing as Pirsig that you end up reading my assertions concerning mysticism and radical empiricism AS IF they were the assertions of a positivist. This would mean that you're reading my comments about the primary empirical reality as if I were a SOMist rather than a MOQer. Thus we had many moons of confusion and talking past each other. Let's take the idea of "unmediated experience" as an example. In this case, when Rortyism (along with Western 20th century philosophy generally) says there can be no such thing it is denying the uber-realist notion that objective reality is what meets the eye. It is a denial of the notion of pure sense data, of the world hitting the retina throught a clear glass, free of distortions. Of course Pirsig also attacks that same mirror of nature, the one that Rorty so famously denies. Pirsig specifically and explicitly rejects both Positivism and sensory empiricism. Pirsig explicitly acknowledges the mediating role of language several times in several different ways; the world is built of analogues upon analogues, Descartes can think only because a french culture exists in which to think, we are suspended in language, etc.. So, since he rejects sensory empiricism and recognizes the contextual nature of thought and perception, it should be clear that the mystical claims about pre-intellectual experience are entirely different from the claims of positivism or realism. The story that Rorty tellls and which you have been following is not at odds with the MOQ insofar as they are both rejecting sensory empiricism, Victorian realism and all that. But I do think it is incorrect to interpret the claims mystical claims of the MOQ as if Pirsig were a positivist or anything like that. If we are working with the assumptions of SOM, it makes perfect sense to deny the possiblity of "pure experience" or "unmediated experience" and Pirsig agrees. But when we are talking about pre-intellectual experience in the MOQ we are working with different assumptions. We're talking about unconstructed awareness, undifferentiated consciousness, not crystal clear eye balls, perfect mirrors. See, it seems to me that you have used the prohibition against ocular metaphors as a weapon against mysticism and this was confusing. Now that I understand the context in which these terms work, I can see why it was confusing. See, you took an anti-realist move and used it against the MOQ's notion of direct and immediate experience, effectively attacking a move it never makes. And the worst part is that this prevents you from really confronting what the MOQ is actually saying about this category of experience. Following Rorty's story makes sense up to a certain point, but it will pretty much ensure a misreading of Pirsig if the pre-intellectual reality of the mystics is confused with the direct perception of objective reality or as a pure realism. Thanks, dmb _________________________________________________________________ The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
