[MD] Transhumanism

[david buchanan]

Matt said to Krimel:
... I--as a philosopher personally reflecting on his metaphors--can't really see it [Pirsig's cultural lens metaphor] as a major alteration because the basic metaphor has stayed the same.  What it does is update it to not be so static, but if you've already lodged complaints against the entire ocular metaphor itself, then it isn't clear what more is gained by going back to it.  It's like being asked to go back to a geocentric view ...



dmb says:

Upon reflection, you don't like the entire ocular metaphor itself, eh?. Since "reflection" is itself one of thee primary ocular metaphors, your claim is ironic enough to evoke laughter.

And that's just what Pirsig is doing with his cultural lens metaphor. He's using an ocular metaphor to undermine the myth of the given, to dispute the idea that we simply observe the world and especially to show how the metaphysical assumptions behind theories of correspondence and representation.

In other words, you are rejecting Pirsig's imagery despite the fact that he uses that imagine to dispute the very same thing that you find objectionable about ocular metaphors. Whether you realize it or not, in rejecting Pirsig's metaphor, you're rejecting the very idea that serves as the basis of that rejection. This is the same kind of ham-handed use of Rortyism that I was complaining about a couple of weeks ago. This kind of move makes you seem to be a staunch defender of slogans that you don't really understand. It's like you don't really "see" the philosophical problem with ocular metaphors and so you attack the metaphor whether it actually suffers from that problem or not. That lacks finesse, Mr. Kundert. That's what I mean by "ham-handed".

We know Pirsig's "view" does not suffer from this problem because he expresses the same idea several times and in several different ways. His correction of Descartes, for example. He approvingly quotes the slogan, "we are suspended in language" and says our reality is built of ghosts, of analogy upon analogy. He says nature only tells us what the culture predisposes us to hear. Etc., etc.. These are all ways of saying what many philosophers believe today; that reality is socially constructed. That's what the SOM glasses represent in Pirsig's metaphor, the basic assumptions of our culture, the ones that determine how we "see" the "world". This is one area where Pirsig and Rorty and a whole lot of other thinkers agree. It is an idea you already substantially subscribe to and yet you are willing to reject it because the mode of expression conjures an "image" you don't like? I think further "reflection" is needed, sir.


I think ocular metaphors work pretty well most of the time because they make things so "clear". Everyone knows what it's like to cope with darkness and obscurity and nobody likes it. Somehow, such unsettling situations are quite apt for the expression of ignorance and confusion. I mean, poetically they work and using them doesn't commit you to a particular epistemological position, especially when you're using them to dispute that position as Pirsig does. 



 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4