[MD] Ironistic Metaphysics

[david buchanan]

Matt said:
I would then argue that these questions, about the relationship between Pirsig's practice and his theory, are  _primary_ to any correct understanding of what Pirsig was up to, of what _Pirsig's philosophy is_. ... I  take it DMB would say that the problem-area of Pirsig's _mysticism_ is primary to any correct understanding of Pirsig. Our disagreements, perhaps, might be summed up by the over-arching understanding of what we take to be the most important element of what he was doing.  I think one will get warped answers when explicating what Pirsig's philosophy is if you don't go through the philosophy/life question first, whereas DMB, for instance, thinks the same if you don't go through mysticism, and,...


dmb says:
I don't think it works to construe our disagreements that way because mysticism is central in Pirsig's biography AND in his philosophy. It's in his life and in his books, which only makes sense. In fact, that's one of the major reasons for claiming that it's so central. 
In fact, mysticism has a very interesting effect on his use of the terms "metaphysics". He had said that metaphysics has two major opponents and that mystics were the more formidable, that a metaphysics of Quality is an impossibility, a logical contradiction from the mystic's perspective. 
Obviously, this is very far away from what Rorty is saying, although he thinks its "impossible" for different reasons. I mean, Rorty is no mystic. And if your aim is to somehow combine their wisdom, eventually you're going to have to deal with that issue. 
For whatever it's worth,
dmb   
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009