[MD] Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Common Sense

[Matt Kundert]

DMB said:
..."Socrates essentially defined philosophy as a common, 
basic human activity when he said that the unexamined 
life is not worth living. Plato said that philosophy was for 
the very few people who were able to do it. Pirsig said 
philosophy isn’t worth doing if it doesn’t help with life. Rorty 
said philosophy is pretty remote from life."  You answered 
right away, saying, "I think they can, in their way, fit 
together coherently".

I'm not quite sure how to square that intro with what 
you're saying about the piece now, exactly, but whatever. 
I just wanted to remind you where and how this got started. 
You're acting like I'm just an unreasonable crazy person to 
have expected anything about the  philosophies of Plato or 
Pirsig. 

Matt:
And I will again repeat (it yet again different words) that it 
is acutely unreasonable (though not perhaps crazy) to think 
that any great philosopher worth reading more than once has 
got only one thing going on in his philosophy that is worth 
focusing on.  To put the matter differently again, the paper 
isn't about how Plato's entire philosophy fits together nor Pirsig's, 
but about how select parts relate to each other.  If we use that 
circle metaphor I used, then we might say I highlighted each of 
four points on the circumference so that we might explore what 
was going on in the center--the relationship between the points.

And you don't know how to square my intro?  I told the reader 
_exactly_ what I was going to talk about in the four participants.  
I've written shitty intros before that completely mislead the 
auditor on what to expect (only occasionally on purpose), but 
how more concise and direct can a guy with a wordy reputation 
be?

DMB sad:
I'm not making hay out of "anything". Why do you insist on trivializing 
my concerns? 

Matt:
I didn't.  After _you_ admitted that your concerns were the muted 
"I wish you'd done something else," I agreed that maybe someday 
I'll write that book which you should be the one writing.

DMB said:
I think it is not only unfair and inaccurate to characterize the 
MOQ's mysticism as "my predeliction", I think it also begs the central 
question. 

Matt:
No, no, there is no central question in this case.  I begged no question 
about a correct interpretation of Pirsig because I wasn't advancing a 
controversial interpretation of Pirsig's philosophy.  I was, clearly, 
advancing an understanding of Pirsig's philosophy (out of the bit I was 
highlighting) and I would maintain that it is in the correct spirit, but 
the mind-boggling part of this inane routine we're currently enacting is 
that you have done _nothing_ to controvert any particular piece of 
the atmospheric understanding of Pirsig I _did_ advance.

DMB sid:
I've been making a case for the centrality of mysticism for a long time 
and you're just not into it. This is the heart of our disagreement. 

Matt:
The centrality to what, Pirsig?  Shit, I've conceded that mysticism is 
a very important part in grappling the entire compass of Pirsig's 
project many times.  It's not my focus.  I add, if anything, different 
pieces to different parts of the puzzle.  You're the one who sees a 
problem with taking off different chunks at a time.  Apparently you 
won't even allow it in classicists like Dodds and Vlastos.

But if by centrality you mean to life, then absolutely I'm not into it.  
Just not my thing.  I like Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman.  Sue me.

DMB said:
Obviously, in response to your throw-away piece, the issue has come 
up again. Your response this time is a pretty good microcosm of the 
whole thing too. It's just my interests and your interests or its just my 
prediliction, my focus. It's just that you were REALLY offering a 
coherent picture of their respective attitudes about philosophy. It's 
just that you're telling a different story. Don't you see how all that is 
just one big series of question begging?

Matt:
Nope.  Different claims need to be met differently, and I only apologize 
for making many different kinds of claims, of working many angles, of 
having many more things I like to think about, and things I'm able to
talk about (small as it is).

And please, I don't always answer that we just have different interests.  
I've only recently started doing that in the endgame of discussion 
because it seems that, every time we try and find where we disagree, 
the real point of meaningful disagreement disappears before my eyes, 
though you apparently see it clearly and distinctly.  I can only toss up 
my hands.

DMB said:
The question is not whether you're interested or how important I think 
it is. Is mysticism central to Pirsig's way of doing philosophy? Answering 
that question hinges on the textual evidence. It's really that simple. 
What do the books say? 

Matt:
I will repeat that I agree, just so that we are clear.

DMB said:
Yes, yes, yes, I know interpretations are unavoidable and all that. 

Matt:
I don't know what you are suggesting here.  That I would think there's 
no such thing as a correct interpretation?  I haven't, though, advanced 
such a thing, if ever, since I would guess 2003.  For a long time now, 
I've advanced a distinction between biography and philosophy, between 
reconstructing a philosophy that the author would agree to and 
reconstructing one for one's own purposes.

DMB said:
Again, this so called "throw-away piece" was presented as a gift and 
you were the gift-bearer.

Matt:
Fuck you, dude.  I was mentioning something I had written on my blog 
that talked about Pirsig just in case anyone here would be interested.  
This is a forum for discussion, is it not?  Get your own website and fight 
your turf-war there, would you?

Hell, I did.

Matt

p.s.  I apologize to everyone else for the foul language and seeming 
hostility.  Though DMB and I go back and forth from interpretational to 
personal hostility like a tennis match, I think my girlfriend was right in 
characterizing it as more like sibling rivalry.  People get beat up, hurt, 
pissed and the like, and hey, we may not only grow up hating each other, 
but also grow up to be estranged as adults, but I think deep down we 
both know we're blood-brothers.

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009