[MD] Where "Matt and Dave" All Began

[Matt Kundert]

My conversation with Dave Buchanan first started in November, 2002.  
I was a prickly little weasel who thought he was witty.  I wasn't.  I 
had been writing a few long posts in that last six months that were 
critical of Pirsig in a few places.  At the end of July, I had written my 
infamous "Confessions of a Fallen Priest" post, which kicked up a lot 
of dust (and subsequently became the essay of the same name on 
moq.org).  I became a "Pirsig critic," a mantle worn by other people 
like Sam Norton and Scott Roberts, people with interests other than 
Pirsig who wielded those interests occasionally at Pirsig.  My quite 
new one was Richard Rorty.  And as any objective observer could 
tell, the mere title of my piece quite loudly proclaimed my penchant 
for self-dramatization.

The trouble between Dave and I began when Dan Glover asserted 
that "Mr. Pirsig has said it and I too get the feeling that people in 
general 
won't appreciate what he's saying in Lila nor will there be a 
general 
appreciation of that work for another 50 or 100 years" 
("Individuality," Nov. 15, 2002).  Having been reading a bunch of 
histories of philosophy, and Rorty, I countered with an alternative 
assertion (quoting from a letter I had recently written someone): 
"I've gone through many stages in my philosophical development and 
I've
picked up a few things.  For one, Pirsig talks about how he's 
being ignored
by the philosophical establishment.  This is something 
you will hear all
the time on moq.org.  The reason, I've come to 
believe, is not why he says
it is.  Pirsig and most moqers believe that 
Pirsig is too far ahead of his
time.  Not so.  A better placement of 
Pirsig would be in the 18th century.
That's why Pirsig is ignored.  
Because he read some really old philosophy,
stopped, said a few 
interesting things about it, and then created a
philosophical system 
that's antiquated before it even hit the paper" ("Individuality," 
Nov. 15, 2002).

I said at the time that this was "harsh," and I now wish that I had not 
put the point this way when I was a young, stupid 22-year-old who'd 
read a few histories of philosophy.  On the other hand, I still think the 
gist of what I said is right.  The idea was that Pirsig's philosophical 
vocabulary, like "experience" and "pre-intellectual," sounds more like 
the philosophical vocabulary Germans and Frenchies used in the 18th 
and 19th centuries.  And I also thought that the inference from the 
fact that one wasn't "accepted" by the establishment to the assertion 
that one is ahead of one's time was also too patty on the backy, and 
not always how history worked out for other people who thought the 
same thing for the same reasons (I think of all my compatriots in 
Phil 101).

Platt replied to my assertion, rightly, "Care to back it up with some 
evidence?" ("Individuality," Nov. 15, 2002)  I then said, "What you are 
asking for is a bigger task then you may think (or not, you
may be 
snickering at the work I'll have to do).  To do it right, I'll have
to sketch 
the contours of the history of philosophy, tracing out the things
they 
thought were problems and how they changed over time.  I'll have to

find passages from a whole range of philosophers in the past and 
place them
in these contours.  It takes work to track specific passages 
down.  I'll
also have to find passages from a whole range of 
philosophers from the
recent past all the way up to the present.  This 
way I'll be able to chart
the movement of contemporary philosophy 
and then we'll be able to see which
context (based on the kind of 
language Pirsig uses and the kinds of things
he sees as problems) 
Pirsig fits in best.  This all takes time and its time that, this being the 
middle of a school
semester, I don't have right now.  Granted, I plan 
on doing this, but it
will have to wait and it will probably be a project, 
if I'm going to do it
right, that will last me a long time and take a lot 
of research."

Then I made my mistake.  I then pointed out: "Now, the funny thing 
is that you have to be prepared to do the same thing.
You see, you 
say, 'Show me the evidence for saying that Pirsig better fits
in the 
18th C.'   Well, I'm quite validated in saying the opposite right
back, 
'Show me the evidence for saying that Pirsig better fits in the 20th
C. 
(or, at the least, doesn't fit in better in the 18th C.)'  I'm pretty
sure 
that nobody at this site right now has the necessary background in

intellectual history to be able to make either argument, or at least to 
do
it right.
So, until you (or anybody else) provide the historical 
scholarship that
everyone can review, seeing all the evidence and 
the like, we're both in
the same boat.  I can sketch small contours 
and try and point in the
direction I will be heading.  But I'm pretty 
sure that Pirsigian
scholarship is going to be a lifelong task for 
myself, one I'm fully
prepared to undertake, and this specific 
answer will be a while yet coming" ("Individuality," Nov. 16, 2002).

Looking back, I guess that seemed kind of arrogant.  I probably 
wouldn't say that anymore, despite the fact that I still suspect that 
neither I nor anyone else likely has the requisite background to do 
the work really well, something that would convince the shit out of 
everyone, one way or the other (except perhaps Anthony McWatt, 
and maybe Dave).  The only difference between me-now and me-then 
is that I no longer think I will ever get around to this project, ever 
accumulate the necessary background to make these claims solid as 
a rock.

The tone was disrespectful to Robert Pirsig, something I wish I hadn't 
been so much of.  But whereas Platt, in a sense agreeing with my 
larger assessment of the kind of work some of our grandiose 
assertions imply we should be able to do, said, "I plead guilty to 
throwing down red meat" ("Individuality," Nov. 17, 2002), Dave 
replied, "Holy Hubris, Batman! Can I stand near you? I want to be 
seen with you
because you're the only one here arrogant enough to 
make me look humble. I'm
in your debt. Just kidding. But as one with 
a background in intellectual
history, I can't help but take this as a 
challenge. Which doesn't mean I'm
planning to conduct a research 
project on the scale you suggest. No way. I
don't have enough faith 
in the fruitfulness of such a thing to make any
commitments" 
("Individuality," Nov. 17, 2002).

The main problem that my first encounter with Dave punches up is: 
"How do people conduct a philosophical conversation with grace and 
honesty if they do not have the ability to fulfill evidential and 
argumentative commitments their occasionally large assertions and 
feelings about philosophy take on?"  This is the general conundrum 
of amateur philosophy.  I think amateur philosophy can, and should, 
be done.  I think Pirsig was right when he implied that we amateurs 
shouldn't be cowed by professional expertise.  But that doesn't 
eliminate the problem.  It doesn't mean that we are not sometimes 
wrong, and professional philosophers are the kind of people who sit
 around all day getting paid to think of ways to be able to articulate 
that kind of stuff.  While I may have once aspired to professional 
expertise, I no longer have those aspirations.  I would be dishonest 
if I said that I still hope to someday have the authoritative 
background to pick up some of the markers I've left lying around the 
MD.  But I still can't honestly deny that I have certain opinions.

My response to the meat I helped Platt throw down was to plead for 
more time and to articulate the difficulty of the problem.  Dave's 
response was to ask me to trust him when he says I'm wrong.  So 
how does one maintain the integrity of their opinions in the face of 
such flexed authority?  What if we don't _feel_ convinced?  What is 
the proper response?

"I predict that Pirsig will be remembered, but for his criticisms and 
insights about culture, rather than for his systematic
philosophy."

That was my point back in 2002, and I still think that's right.  
That's a prediction, not something that can be backed up by 
argument or evidence.  I thought then, have said on occasion over 
the years, and will repeat now, that my bet is that Pirsig will find a 
home in English departments, not Philosophy departments.  
Considering my different aspirations, I will now formulate the 
prediction as so: I bet I will have an easier time getting Pirsig into 
the literary canon then Dave or Anthony getting Pirsig into the 
philosophical canon.

Will I likely succeed?  Probably not.  I don't have that kind of talent.  
But that's not what predictions are for.

Matt