[MD] Pirsig's revenge

[John Carl]

David,

I agree completely.

What a relief.

In fact, when I read the review I was reminded of a college english teacher
I had once who commented upon ZAMM as uninteresting till he read it again
with the insight that what the book was REALLY about was a father's efforts
to reconcile with his son, and all the metaphysics was just a distraction.

I thought the guy, like most college teachers, was full of hot air.  But he
did help me realize something important which is that everybody comes to a
work with their own leanings, their own preconceptions.  The fact that we on
this list concur that Pirsig's work is of the highest quality, doesn't mean
that other people who just don't get it are stupid.

They're just stupid in a certain, specific way.





On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:52 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> I was nervous to read Strawson's review because I assumed it would be very
> tough to dispute a professional. I was shocked at his lack of substance and
> excessively insulting tone. In fact, if I had read that without knowing he's
> a pro, I would have assumed it was a high school kid or something. It's
> petty and even a bit stupid.
>
> The thing that shocked me most was his claim that subject-object
> metaphysics is a straw man. He thinks it doesn't exist, that it's a view
> held by no one. But I read other philosophers who talk about subject-object
> metaphysics all the time and I think he's obviously wrong, demonstrably
> wrong. For example, an article by Charles Hobbs for the William James
> Society includes these points....
>
> "A theme running throughout James's writings is one of countering dualistic
> tendencies as opposed to strongly asserting any form of phenomenalism. That
> is, a prominent goal of James involves the repudiation of any
> epistemological and/or metaphysical "divide" between an objective external
> world and a subjective knower. As Suckiel has said, he aimed "…to
> demonstrate that there is no epistemological or metaphysical gap between the
> knower and the known, and hence no need for either constructing bridges or
> lamenting their absence."
> "James contends that experiences are pure before being subjected to
> analysis or conceptualization. He says that "The instant field of the
> present is at all times what I call the 'pure' experience." It is only in
> retrospect that such pure or primary reality can be dichotomized or even
> reflected upon. In seeking to overcome the mind-body dualism that is so
> prevalent in the history of philosophical discourse, James advocates the
> bringing of attention to bear on life as it is lived, and the theme of pure
> experience involves the abandonment of those theories exemplified by their
> emphasis on the terms mind and body, as if these are separate and
> substantial entities."
>
> This shows that James thought SOM was a problem worthy of his attention. It
> shows that the author of the article knows what it is and thinks it's worth
> grappling with and he quotes a third philosopher (Suckiel) who also
> recognizes it and wants to get rid of it. If I had the chance to ask
> Strawson a question, it would be about this so-called straw man. I think
> this open discussion of SOM and how we ought to get rid of it also shows
> that SOM and intellect are not identical, that intellect is what you use to
> attack SOM.
>

My cursory readings in early zen writings also confirms that these thinkers
were wrestling with, and overcoming the world view of subject and objects.

So you're saying, while undoubtedly SOM is intellectual, not all intellect
is SOM?

makes sense to me.

John from his deepening whole