tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post114453227237330199..comments2023-07-04T03:53:40.171-07:00Comments on Matt Kundert's Friday Experiment: Prospectus, Part IIIMatt Khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05304261355315746372noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-10114608176129682682007-04-27T04:52:00.000-07:002007-04-27T04:52:00.000-07:00just re-read that conversationRigel = Rigid?Richar...just re-read that conversation<BR/><BR/>Rigel = Rigid?<BR/><BR/>Richard Rigid, the stickler for the social levelSam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-1145093283054117232006-04-15T02:28:00.000-07:002006-04-15T02:28:00.000-07:00ROFLMAO!Actually that thought had occurred to me (...ROFLMAO!<BR/><BR/>Actually that thought had occurred to me (Matt's, not Rick's). Link it with Lila meaning 'play' and - Pirsig played around and blew it....Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-1144858929749384682006-04-12T09:22:00.000-07:002006-04-12T09:22:00.000-07:00Hey, I just thought of something.Is there anything...Hey, I just thought of something.<BR/><BR/>Is there anything in Lila's name, like her _last_ name? Blewitt? Like, Pheadrus or Pirsig "Blew It"?Matt Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304261355315746372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-1144856587732819252006-04-12T08:43:00.000-07:002006-04-12T08:43:00.000-07:00A couple of things stand out to me, on reflecting ...A couple of things stand out to me, on reflecting again about this:<BR/><BR/>1) Sam's right, the amiguous place of conventional morality stands out on this reading. Sam and I have been railing against the distinction between the social and intellectual levels partly for that I reason, I think. Partly because language is social (our Wittgensteinianism), partly because Sam wants emotions to see their day (which I agree with, though I've never focused on the issue like Sam), and partly, I have to think, because there seems to be something wrong with splitting social morality away from intellectual symbol manipulation (i.e., rationality) as Pirsig does. It seems to me like the whole Platonic mistake of making justice kow-tow to philosophy, ethics to knowledge, the Good to the Truth. <BR/><BR/>Pirsig makes tremendous strides towards fixing that mistake, but the question the reading forces us to look at is why Phaedrus (the character, if not Pirsig) never confronts the situation of his having cheated on his wife. The novel never says he's married (does it?), but it is heavily implied in the Rigel chapter. The fact that Phaedrus slept with Lila is hardly ever brought up again. That's why I hammer on the "dodging the real question" stuff, because it seems like Rigel is right: Phaedrus is hedonistic. He does what he wants, and then ignores the consequences by intellectualizing it away.<BR/><BR/>I think this reading definitely raises the question of how Pirsig is treating "conventional" morality.<BR/><BR/>2) The question of whether it is mysticism or insanity is still haunting me. It occured to me today that this question parallel's the question of whether it is DQ or degeneracy. They are more or less the same question by Pirsig's lights. And he doesn't answer the latter question.<BR/><BR/>But that makes me wonder, considering he says in that footnote that not all mysticism is insanity and not all insanity is mysticism, but they do overlap, how Pirsig would say we are able to tell the difference. He doesn't answer that question, no less because the implied question was only raised after a particular reading of the novel. Is it as impossible as I've been making answering the DQ/degeneracy question?<BR/><BR/>These two questions, about "social morality" and mysticism/insanity, loop together. For this is why Pirsig looks hedonistic. If DQ tops everything, that makes mysticism always best. But how do we tell if its mysticism? Does that just punch up the struggle of life? We never will be able to tell? Well then, what the hell does the MoQ help us with because _we've always known life is a struggle_? <BR/><BR/>If Pirsig is just pointing out that crazy people saying crazy things (like the earth revolves around the sun or people evolved out of monkeys) sometimes push culture and life forward, then he isn't saying anything new. But if he isn't _just_ saying that, but he can't be telling us how to tell the mystics from the insane (because that's the impossibility of telling DQ from degeneracy), then is what Pirsig suggesting that we should follow our bouts of insanity more often? That we should break the rules more often? Isn't that what makes him look more hedonistic then?Matt Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304261355315746372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-1144760254530035322006-04-11T05:57:00.000-07:002006-04-11T05:57:00.000-07:00Hey Rick - I think it's the other way round - we'r...Hey Rick - I think it's the other way round - we're the cardinals ;)<BR/><BR/>And I disagree that it's 99.9% out - I think there's something crucial here. It could be something irreducibly ambiguous, but, like I said at the start, this is really interesting. Spins off into the whole question of where morality fits in (morality as conventionally understood).Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-1144698932868271962006-04-10T12:55:00.000-07:002006-04-10T12:55:00.000-07:00Gone to the MD with it?Hell no.For one, its just t...Gone to the MD with it?<BR/><BR/>Hell no.<BR/><BR/>For one, its just too big. I could cut it down to size, but it would still be too big. Multi-part posts have never been a good idea.<BR/><BR/>For two, its just too darn heretical. I think it may be fairly idiosyncratic and the kind of backlash I would probably get is just too boring for me to want to. My experience in that arena tells me to just stay away from it with this.<BR/><BR/>For three, the reading still isn't totally worked out. The first objection would be the one you had and the one that Rick and I discussed: are we over-reaching? I think we might be to a certain extent, but I think the overreach might still show something about how far we can reach with it.<BR/><BR/>But yeah, the stuff about intellectual instincts is terribly important. Because it shows us something which we all struggle with. That's why I like the romantic/classic split somewhat more than the DQ/sq split (at least how it is sometimes used). <BR/><BR/>One of the things I went on about in a letter to Rick is how badly I most of all got tangled in the noose of reading LILA systematically--because I'm a pragmatist. I'm _anti_-system, but _that_, ironically, causes me to read things as system sometimes. Its an interesting tangle. Anthony and DMB have never been totally wrong when they tell me I'm reading Pirsig all wrong, through Western eyes and the like. Its just what they're saying doesn't sound totally right.Matt Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304261355315746372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-1144696550667196612006-04-10T12:15:00.000-07:002006-04-10T12:15:00.000-07:00BTW have you gone on MD with this? be interesting ...BTW have you gone on MD with this? be interesting to know what reaction you got.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-1144696472894926262006-04-10T12:14:00.000-07:002006-04-10T12:14:00.000-07:00Makes sense. Part of my fascination with Pirsig is...Makes sense. Part of my fascination with Pirsig is that I share the same attributes - except with me it's a bit more systematic theology than philosophy. Wittgenstein had some positive impact :o)Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-1144676503915483662006-04-10T06:41:00.000-07:002006-04-10T06:41:00.000-07:00"that is the most interesting thing I've read..."T..."that is the most interesting thing I've read..."<BR/><BR/>Those were almost the exact same words I used after Rick wrote me with the idea (which is what part 1 mostly is), except I might've used a few more F-bombs. Thank you to Rick.<BR/><BR/>But you're absolutely right, Sam. The reading doesn't immediately jive with post-LILA Pirsig. That's something Rick and I talked about. One of the things in particular was when the Baggini interview came out: "'While Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a skeleton of a philosophy enclosed within a full-bodied novel,' Pirsig told me, 'Lila is a skeleton of a novel enclosed within a full-bodied philosophy.'"<BR/><BR/>Maybe that shoots the whole suggestion in the foot. But maybe it doesn't. I don't know. The Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde view of Pirsig that I've been promoting for years, that this reading continues to a certain extent, might be able to account for it. The Phaedrus side of Pirsig that wins at the end of ZMM writes Lila and then continues on. If it is indeed autobiographical, then it makes sense that Pirsig would continue with his systematic tendencies after Lila.<BR/><BR/>My impression of Pirsig is that, at any given moment, either his anti-systematic side or his systematic side may show itself, all depending on what his situation is, what critical pressure is being pressed on him. I think that might be the most important message: Pirsig's conflicted. _He_ doesn't know whether it is insanity or mysticism. He may never be certain whether system is good or bad. Part of him is the analytic, professional logical positivist-type, the other half the mystic-type: his philosophy tries to split the difference of his personality.Matt Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304261355315746372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-1144650672387526482006-04-09T23:31:00.000-07:002006-04-09T23:31:00.000-07:00Now that is the most interesting thing I've read a...Now that is the most interesting thing I've read about Pirsig and the MoQ in many years. Thanks to you and Rick.<BR/><BR/>One immediate reaction - there may be more in time - but however sympathetic I find that reading of Lila, it doesn't actually tally with the biographical Pirsig as met through moq.org, ie the one who is pleased when a PhD is completed on the MoQ. Surely the Pirsig you describe would say that a PhD has missed the point? (Which I'm pretty sure he didn't!)<BR/><BR/>Which raises the question, again, of self-consistency - of a 'good Pirsig' (anti-system) and a 'bad Pirsig' (pro-system, and the one who rationalises his own selfishness).<BR/><BR/>Fascinating.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.com