[MD] Intellectual honesty

[david buchanan]

John said to dmb:
It seems to me that you're pointing to the quantity of denigration vs. the lone enthusiasm and saying that there's more denigration than enthusiasm. ...But my point is that his thinking clearly shows a progression toward the enthusiasm - the enthusiasm occurs last - and thus the conclusion of enthusiasm is more significant than earlier denigration based upon mere connotation of the word "absolute".  But really, what is Quality, if not an Absolute Ideal?

dmb replies:

If it were just a matter of sheer weight then the scale would definitely be tipped toward denigrating comments, yes. But it's more than that. His denials are just so clear that it is entirely implausible to describe Pirsig as an endorser or as being enthusiastic about Absolute Idealism. Besides the two denials in Lila, there is this one from ZAMM. It directly answers your last question in the negative.

"Hegel had talked like this, with his Absolute Mind. Absolute Mind was independent too, both of objectivity and subjectivity. However, Hegel said the Absolute Mind was the source of everything, but then it excluded romantic experience from the 'everything' it was the source of. Hegel's Absolute was completely classical, completely rational and completely orderly.  Quality was not like that." (ZAMM 252)
This is consistent with the comments he made 17 years later, where DQ "is not a social code or some intellectualized Hegelian Absolute. It is direct everyday experience." (Lila, 366)

It's not just the quantity of such statements. It's the clarity of these denials. That's what makes your point so implausible. You want to equate Quality and the Absolute but Pirsig says they are not the same. Period. Is there any reasonable way to interpret "Quality is not like that" so that it means "Quality is just like that"? Of course not. Like I said, the best you can do is make a case that the similarities are interesting or illuminating or something like that. But to suggest that Pirsig is an enthusiastic endorser of Bradley's or anyone's Absolute Idealism would simply be false.
If you can read, and you've read those quotes, then you know better. So now if you make that claim, you are simply being intellectually dishonest.  

And, look, I realize it doesn't help to dispute your claims with "an attitude of such superiority andpersonal denigration", as you put it. But, John, look at yourself. Your argument is wildly at odds with very clear evidence and never every single thing you say to me includes a little side-dish of hostile insults. It's just stupid and mean and childish. How do you think I'm going to respond to that. I think my response is far more respectful than you deserve, actually.



Some day I'll tell you what I really think, then you'll realize what a prince I am today.



 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2