[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

Steve said:
Pirsig has described freedom as a matter of perception while every 
other philosopher that I have ever read has described it as a matter 
of will. You don't see that as interesting? That's not worth thinking 
about?

Matt:
I've been accused of distorting "what Pirsig says" off and on for about 
a decade, and as I have perhaps a more liberal sense of what it 
means to legitimately appropriate a thinker, or extend their thinking, 
I thought I might comment that everyone might pause and consider 
their own sense of what is a legitimate mode of "translating" from 
"what Pirsig says" to "what Pirsig really means."

If we try too hard to make sure we agree with Pirsig, that's no good 
for either us or Pirsig.  Precision of formulation _has_ to be an 
important consideration in philosophy, because if it wasn't, we could 
just first assume that everyone agrees with us, and then pick out 
where it seems "close enough," or just willfully pound them into the 
shape we want.

Sometimes we do that.  Sometimes that's okay.  Sometimes we just 
use and abuse.  But part of the mission of the MD seems to be a 
self-conscious awareness of what Pirsig's intentions were, whether 
or not they produced something you think is good or not.  It's okay 
to think Pirsig misstepped his own formulation of the heart of his 
philosophy.  What we need (and what, e.g., Bo Skutvik apparently 
never had) is an awareness of when Pirsig ends and you begin.  
One way to formulate this is to say a particular phrasing that Pirsig 
used isn't important to the point he was trying to make.  The center 
of gravity for the heart of his philosophy is somewhere else.  I think 
that's legitimate, but it has to be in the light of what taking seriously 
that formulation _would mean_ to the rest of his philosophy: it 
would mean patiently taking the time to explore the consequences 
of the actual words he uses.

For example, I think the heart of Pirsig's philosophy might be more 
massively augmented by taking the "care passages" of ZMM more 
seriously, in the direction that Steve has marked out as the liberal 
viewpoint of extending circles of concern, and for which he is 
currently concerned that Pirsig may not approach enough.  I am 
less concerned, and think Pirsig would fair well in an extrapolation.  
But the one thing I would not be is as blithe as John is in asserting 
that Pirsig is all about love and empathy.  Steve seems to be right 
when he suggests that we should think through the fact that "care" 
is left behind somewhat, and "love" doesn't seem to come up at all.  
It's not exactly that John is wrong, but he seems to be lacking in 
that self-consciousness.  And it could easily be repaired by simply 
taking those apparent facts into account, something along the lines 
of, "That's true, he doesn't talk about care or love a lot.  But if we 
move the center of gravity of our understanding of Quality to 'care,' 
then there's a sense in which Pirsig is suggesting that evaluative 
behavior--the only behavior that exists--is in fact equated, the same 
as, a fluctuating circle of concern.  I.e., low quality is the same as 
judging that you _don't_ care about something.  And, additionally, 
the reason why Pirsig avoided extensive reflection on care, and 
particularly about love, might be a reaction-formation to the hippies.  
Even as Pirsig wrote, he sensed something a little off about the 
hippie movement, something to beware rhetorically of, and by the 
90s it became obvious that if he wanted to bridge-build at the 
cultural level between conservatives and liberals, it would be with the 
word 'value' (which conservatives seem to have co-opted and think 
liberals had abdicated) and not 'love,' which conservatives still were 
reacting to in the hippie context.  To formulate philosophical 
propositions with 'love' at the center would move too close to the 
'soup of sentiments' that he wanted to avoid."  Taking things into 
account explicitly, being self-conscious, seems to be central to 
philosophical articulation.

I don't think Pirsig, the rhetorician, did not choose his words carefully 
most of the time.  Taking seriously his own formulations will tell you 
where he is revolutionary and not.  Taking seriously Pirsig's verbiage 
is how you pay homage to his thought, particularly if you want to say 
something slightly different.  Thinking things through, patiently and 
carefully, isn't the antithesis of Dynamic Quality.

And sometimes we should relinquish the thought that we don't have 
anything new to learn about Pirsig.  Sometimes we might treat the 
MD like a laboratory for testing hypotheses, testing an idea for its 
consequences, even if we aren't sold on the idea yet.  You don't yell 
at a scientist if he tests a new liquid in a beaker and it blows up.  If 
we had more of what Emerson called a "youth of mind," and 
approached each other in that spirit more often, I think we'd learn a 
lot more about Pirsig and ourselves.

Matt