[MD] Doug Renselle & Language

[Krimel]

Krimel said:
My point, restated goes something like this. The MoQ as I read it 
was never aimed at a technical audience of any kind. It was a mass 
marketed attempt to raise a few philosophical issues. Turning it into 
a formal system with technical jargon seems at odds with that.

Matt:
Oh, I think I see: you're making a point specific to Pirsig's choices as 
a philosopher, as opposed to general points about philosophical 
process.  Something like that?

[Krimel]
I actually mean both. Pirsig's choices in particular but philosophy in
general. The latter may be 'cause I am having to read Foucault, a guy who
starts in French and is translated into some other language I do not speak.

[Matt]
I think you're right that Pirsig wrote for a mass audience, but I'm not 
sure you're right that Lila, or ZMM for that matter, didn't deploy a 
technical jargon, as lightly as it in the end might have been 
comparatively (to, say, Carnap or Heidegger).  I used to like to say 
to people, when they would complain about my jargonizing, that 
"metaphysics" is a jargon term, so they can't rightly think that Pirsig 
was jargon-free, in spite of the stuff about "plain speaking" in Lila.  
As I see it, Pirsig had a two-step job: 1) as you say, "raise a few 
philosophical issues," which meant working his layperson audience 
into a minimum level acquaintance with philosophical jargon and 
then 2) deploying his own to resolve some of the problems at that 
loose stage.  

[Krimel]
He does this brilliantly too, I might add.
The cracks don't become obvious until we start piling on too much weight.

[Matt]
And because of his audience/goals as a writer, he 
could have--and we can--move past that loose stage and become 
more technical.  Doing _that_ however also means an 
audience/goal augmentation, which I think is the consideration 
sometimes not pondered enough about by Pirsig enthusiasts.  It 
should be the first thing every amateur philosopher tangles with: 
"who are you writing for?" and "what do you hope to achieve?"

[Krimel]
Here in these discussion the cracks appear and the process of spackling and
shoring up begins. In certain hands I fear the remodeling has turned the
vision of a gothic cathedral into the harsh reality of a double wide with a
rusting swing set out back and two cars on blocks in the front yard, fantasy
concepts meet Tobacco Road.

Matt:
Meh.  I can't get too excited about that as a problem.  I tend to think 
the advantages of "Quality" and "dynamic/static" as choices in terms 
for Pirsig's purposes far outweigh the disadvantages.  Those terms 
are like Hegel's Geist or Heidegger's Dasein: stuff you get to play 
with when deploying the vocabulary.

[Krimel]
I love the KJV because its terms are foreign. I am bothered by a word with
known meanings suddenly having none or some other. I detest the illusion
that that baggage can be set aside.

Krimel said:
But the larger issue is the problem of developing a metaphysics of 
the undefined rooted in precise technical meanings. There is 
something creepily oxymoronic in that.

Matt:
And since Pirsig was cognizant of the oxymoronic 
quality, it should just lead one to wonder why Pirsig, at least, 
didn't find it creepy.

On days I'm feeling generous, I tend to read Pirsig that way--you 
grant him his style, and see what nuggets of wisdom pop out.  
The other three days of the week, I take that part of Pirsig which 
seems to take very seriously the idea that the technical work he 
began developing must be developed for the world to heal, and 
frown.

[Krimel]
And I was content for nearly 20 years to do just that "...grant him his
style, and see what nuggets of wisdom pop out." For 20 years those nuggets
popped like Orville Rickenbacker's best.  

The mystical turn I encountered here felt like a technical turn in the wrong
direction. A hand reaching to unplug my microwave. Your stoic turn has
served you well; good for the blood pressure no doubt. It's a character flaw
of mine, but my impulse is to bite the hand that bleeds me.