[MD] Pirsig's idea of the individual

[Arlo Bensinger]

To: pholden at davtv.com
Subject: Re: [MD] Pirsig's idea of the individual

[Platt]
Help me out here. I thought it was a tenant of postmodernism that all 
cultures are equally worthy, that no one culture ought to be 
considered better than any other...

[Arlo]
You seem to have a strong fixation on using the MOQ to proclaim 
American and Western cultural superiority. That's you own bugaboo, I 
suppose, and I won't get bogged down into another round of "America 
the Superior!". But I will answer your point.

First, "postmodernism" is an umbrella term that covers a wide range 
of theories. Although somewhat brief, I refer you to Wikipedia's 
general introduction on "postmodernism".

"Postmodernism is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of 
developments in critical theory, philosophy, architecture, art, 
literature, and culture, which are generally characterized as either 
emerging from, in reaction to, or superseding, modernism.

Postmodernism (sometimes abbreviated Pomo) was originally a reaction 
to modernism (not "post" in the purely temporal sense of "after"). 
Largely influenced by the disillusionment induced by the Second World 
War, postmodernism tends to refer to a cultural, intellectual, or 
artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing 
principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, 
diversity, and interconnectedness or interreferentiality."

If there is anything that is a "central tenant" of postmodernism, 
that is gleaned from the MOQ, it is this: "Our intellectual 
description of nature is always culturally derived."

This is NOT to say that "postmodernists" don't acknowledge that the 
world exists, as you often mistake "postmodernism" and "Idealism" in 
your posts. Instead, "postmodernists" tend to recognize that our 
intellectual categories, understandings, concepts, habits, customs, 
stories, myths, tendencies and whatnot are engendered and structured 
by the cultural collective (cultural derivation) of the individual.

I can't think of a single postmodern writer, however, that would say 
that the Bataan Death March, or the Trail of Tears, or the Nazi 
Extermination Camps, or the genocide against indigenous Americans, 
are"relativistically equal" to anything else. Instead, what 
"postmodernists" tend to ask us to see is how our own historical 
perspective is invariabley filtered by cultural prejudices, 
propaganda, misinformation, and an ego-centric worldview.

Second, although the MOQ presents broad levels by which cultural 
activity can be seen as either immoral or moral, I doubt the MOQ (or 
Pirsig) would go so far as to say "so-and-so culture is superior in 
every way to so-and-so culture". That is, we can look at aspects of 
culture, including our own, and get a sense of "what is better", but 
broad statements like "American culture is superior to Japanese 
culture" are simply ridiculous. Also, I doubt the MOQ would have 
anything to say to the cultural habit of eating with "forks" versus 
eating with "chopsticks", or enjoying a "violin sonata" versus a 
"didgeridoo piece".

To take a recent example, consider the Islamic Hijab. The MOQ tells 
us that the forcing a woman to wear it, or forcing her NOT to wear 
it, is immoral. The underlying premise being that subjugation of 
women and the restrictions on freedom are immoral. However, the MOQ 
would not (I believe) tell us that not wearing a hijab is more moral 
than wearing a hijab (assuming choice in both instances).

"Postmodernism" steps in to remind us that (again, assuming choice) 
the decisions we make on adorning ourselves, and the restrictions 
placed by society on those choices, are stepped in culturally-rooted 
mediation. Again, for example, we assume that our culture's forced 
concealment of a woman's breasts is somehow "moral and normal", but a 
society that forces her to conceal her face, or arms, or legs, is 
"immoral and abnormal". Postmodernism problematizes our own cultural 
ideas, and raises the questions that you wholly avoided last time 
this topic was addressed.

In brief, tell me why it is "moral" for us to forbid a woman from 
showing her breasts in public, but "immoral" for them to forbid a 
woman from showing her face in public? The same "reasons" you'd 
propose (fear or rape, insulting prudish sensibilities, modesty) are 
all ones they would argue as well. The question really is "what's the 
difference"? Is there a difference? I have argued "no", there is no 
difference. The only "laws" on the concealment of the body should be 
based on medical and hygeneic reasons, the unwanted transmission of 
fluids that could lead to illness, spread disease and cause sickness. 
For those reasons, and I think the MOQ backs this up, society has 
every moral right to force people to conceal parts of their bodies in 
public places.

[Platt]
Is this a exception to standard postmodernist thinking, or have I 
misunderstood what a postmodernist like yourself is likely to believe?

[Arlo]
Since I consider the MOQ to be a "postmodern philosophy", in its 
rejection of "objectivity", its adherence to the social-mediation of 
intellectual knowledge, and Pirsig's own interest in the failings of 
"rationalism" (in ZMM) to deliver human happiness, I find the 
question nonsensical.

 From the essay, "Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality as a Development of 
Enlightenment Concepts" (not sure who the author is). 
(http://www.thepantheist.com/content/MOQenlight.html)

"[Pirsig's] MOQ, which seems to have been mainly concieved in the 
1960's, 70's and 80's, fits the hypothesis of a postmodern reworking 
and expansion upon established Western ideologies based on 
empiricism, science and other Enlightenment concepts. It appears to 
have been borne out of a common unease with the fruits of  Western 
liberal democracy, and a suspicion that 'something is missing' from 
our technological world.

Pirsig attempts to transcend the 'hard' dichotomy of what he calls 
'Subject-Object Metaphysics' which tends to split all human 
endeavours into either 'artistic' or 'scientific' realms. He believes 
he has developed a superior model, with 'Dynamic Quality' at its 
head, apparently not unlike Plato's Theory of Forms, with the Form of 
Good in the prime position.

I believe that Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, though still in a 
relatively raw state, is a valuable postmodern contribution to 
philosophy, despite the apparent nonchalance of academic 
philosophers. At the very least, his books and theories encourage 
thought and debate in the public arena, which I believe is the 
rightful domain of social philosophy, in addition to the sometimes 
dark and silent halls of academia."

(You may like the essay's message on "individualism").