[MD] The Hero's journey

[david buchanan]

Matt said to Dan:
I wish to stop you (if I could) to ask that you not go bit by bit through the post, responding as you think at the moment of reading, but read the whole thing and respond holistically.  .. I apologize for making demands, but it appears from the beginning of your response again that we would just keep spinning in the mud.  ...


dmb says:
Holistically rather than bit by bit. Yep, I'm definitely sympathetic to that complaint. (Although I'd direct this complaint at every participant.) Sometimes, especially when talking about things like philosophy, it's really much better to think and speak in paragraphs. Sometimes it takes a big block of text to express an idea but I'll find people responding to a sentence fragment instead. Sometimes a second or third paragraph is needed in order to further qualify what was said in the first. But I often see responses (from Steve, for example) that simply delete those qualifications and then condemn the idea for lacking those qualifications. From this I can only conclude that these post are going off half-cocked. It seems pretty obvious that such responses are being hastily and absent-mindedly slapped together even before the post has been read all the way through. This tends to produce half-baked, knee-jerk responses that really aren't worth much even when they don't completely miss the point. 

I would beg every MOQer to think in paragraphs - or at least recognize it when the other guy is talking like that. How far can we go by simply trading slogans and quips, after all?


Matt said to Dan:

... I have absolutely no wish to pressure anyone to only speak or write when they "have this all figured out," whatever the "this" is. That is sincere  But in the midst of conversation, isn't it imperative that we try to carve out the consistent space we call "the philosophical position I want to occupy"?  I have been trying to understand what your position is in regard to things like NYC and dog dishes (and now unicorns), but I don't get it.    ...One thing I would insist, though, is that you not blame this on elitism, which is what I sense you keep edging toward with "vastly different background" and "merely withholding the knowledge."  You're emoting a sense that I've done you an injustice, but I'm sorry...


dmb says:

I think a big part of the problem here is the almost constant use of jargon and slogans. That kind of short hand only works when everyone concerned is already familiar with the ideas behind terms like "anti-realism" or "Cartesian anxiety", for example. We're all here to discuss Pirsig's philosophy and we can reasonably expect everyone to become familiar with the jargon in his books, such as it is, but other than that I think we all need to stick with standard english as much as possible. And if a word or slogan is brought into the mix, the one who brings it is obliged to introduce the terms and otherwise explain its meaning, significance, etc., ESPECIALLY if it's not the kind of term or phrase that one can simply look up in a dictionary or encyclopedia. Otherwise, the use of jargon is not only unhelpful, it almost seems like a deliberate effort to exclude people from the conversation. A good writer understands who he is talking to and acts accordingly, no?


Matt said to Dan:
...What I want to know is the relationship you see between "observation" and "experience" (and really, between the "indirect" and "direct" kinds), but you think I'm jerking your chain.  I'm not jerking your chain.  I'm trying to understand you, Dan, and I'm sorry my frustration is bubbling over.  ... If I'm not mistaken, you have been pressing the claim that Dave and I construe "object permanence" as "independent of experience."  You then shake your head, saying that doesn't make any sense from a Pirsigian standpoint.  We agree, so we've tried to explain what "object permanence" is _without_ relying on the anti-Pirsigian claim of "independent of experience."  ..., it appears as if you'd interchanged Quality-experience with subject-observation, thus making them synonymous in the philosophical position you are occupying in this conversation. ...I suggested that your use of "observing" signaled a conflation of "observation" and "experience," despite the fact that you didn't use it.  Also, irrespective of your position, I would posit that Pirsig does not think that Quality-experience can be interchanged with subject-observation.


dmb says:

Yes, I think this is the center of the knot. "Object permanence" is a concept based on sensible, empirical realities. But Dan keeps insisting that it becomes imaginary any time it's not being sensed. So I tried to explain how "permanence" is simply part of what we mean by "objects". It's just a feature of the concept. The concept is based on experience, which means we have empirical, sensible reasons to believe things like dog dishes are going to be there the next time we check. To say the same from the other side of the coin, we have no empirical, sensible reason to think that things could exist so capriciously. Experience offers enough regularity and consistency that concepts like object permanence work quite well. In the MOQ, "objects" are pattens of static quality derived from experience, from DQ. They are concepts that agree with reality, not in the sense that these concepts correctly represent or mirror things-in-themselves, but rather they agree in the sense that they work AS concepts. The whole idea of objective reality as it is regardless of whether or not anyone knows about it, or Kant's idea of things-in-themselves being the cause of our experience, the real reality and at the same time something we can only ever know indirectly as they are filtered through our mental categories. That's when mere objects become elaborately expanded into a metaphysics of substance. That's what Pirsig means to deny when he denies realities "independent of experience". This is very different from doubting every thing that isn't presently felt or known in experience. In the MOQ, realities are limited to that which can be known in experience and we ought not take too seriously any claim about realities that can't be known or experienced. In the MOQ, experience and reality amount to same thing. In that sense, things that are outside of experience are outside of reality. That's how we can tell the difference between dog dishes and unicorns. Well, let me qualify that.

It's pretty silly to be debating the existence of actual horse-like animals with a single phallic horn. Unicorns are part of a symbolic language, of course, and their meaning AS SYMBOLS is quite rich and varied. In that sense, they're a heck of a lot more meaningful and interesting than dog dishes. The comparison would tend to suggest that what's real is whatever is "physically" real. 

As James put it, inner and outer are just names for the way we sort experience into conceptual categories. We think of dog dishes as outer and physical while the unicorn is inner and imaginary. But James said it more like we sort experience this way because "real" dishes and "imaginary" unicorns enter into a different set of relations. The dog dish will make a sound when you put it down on the floor or fill it with crunchies but the imaginary unicorn can gallop across a drum head without making a sound. Imaginary water may or may not put out an imaginary fire but it won't put out a real fire. Causal relations don't necessarily obtain in the inner realm and logic relations don't necessary obtain in the outer realm and so we tend to sort things on the basis of experience. To draw the conclusion that reality itself is so divided is whole other can of worms and we don't have to deny the empirical basis of this sorting out process in order to dispense with the larger metaphysical claim, in order to get rid of SOM. If the infant doesn't sort these things out and learn concepts like object permanence, life is gonna be rough. That's why we should let our babies play with knives and fire. :-)



Dan said to Matt:
I guess one thing that bothers me just a little is that (I feel) I understand you and dmb and where you're both coming from and yet I find I don't altogether agree with either of you when it comes to the MOQ. I tell myself that I must not understand you like I think I do but the further our discussions progress the more intense the feeling grows. I want to explain myself to both of you in a better way so that you both might see what I'm saying but I get the impression it would take years of formal education on my part to do that and by then I would be so thoroughly indoctrinated that I would no longer see things the way I see them now. So maybe I am best seen as merely an uneducated fellow who doesn't know any better.


dmb says:
Yea, you could devote yourself to years of academic study or the rest of us could just explain things in plain english. One of those solutions seems far more plausible than the other.