[MD] Emotions

[John Carl]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Yes, he (Phaedrus) creates the dichotomy by refusing to play the game.
> But Pirsig is not "clueless" about this is he ?


No!  In fact just the opposite.  Good point Ian.



>
> Plato isn't (never was) all baddie. Pirsig (even Phaedrus) knew this,
> and yes the white-horse / black-horse analogy could have been a place
> to build an argument. But it's not the argument Pirsig wanted. He
> wanted to start somewhere other than this black / white, good / bad,
> reason / passion split - find the common ground and divide it up
> differently.
>


Yeah and it wasn't going to happen in that time and venue, hence the trap
avoidance:  this is all ONLY an analogy.

Only?  I was replaying that dialogue towards a different conclusion last
night



>
> (These choices are not perfect. Not only is the naming of the "hero"
> Phaedrus a very late editorial decision, but even making it clear
> whether Pharedrus or the Narrator was winner or loser was an even
> later type-setting choice.)
>
> PS one question - why the word "coincidental" in your point ?
>
> I may have to re-visit the particular Plato story - but I share the
> view that when the argument is between reason and passion, that's the
> point to break off from "reasonable" argument. Paradoxical and
> cyclical as that choice is.


Coincidental as in refusing to meet the enemy on your weakest ground.

I'd like to revisit the analogy too.  My problem is how busy I've been this
week.   Maybe we can work on it together by recreating the scene between
Phaedrus and the Chairman along more illuminating lines...

Phaedrus raises his hand and interjects, "Excuse me, but all this is just an
analogy".

Chairman, taken aback, thinks about this replies, "Yes, that is true, but
the question then is how accurate is this analogy to what we all commonly
experience with our individual experience of reason and passion?"