[MD] Matt and DMB disagree?

[david buchanan]

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