[MD] The Hero's journey

[Matt Kundert]

DMB said:
I can see how these two passages might seem contradictory to those 
who haven't read Pirsig's books, to those who don't know this story. 
But you and Marsha should clearly see that this is an imaginary 
problem.

Matt said:
Perhaps, then, you didn't read what I said.  Perhaps, though, you 
don't know what "misleading" means.  Perhaps, again, I have a 
greater sensitivity to, and desire to be sensitive to, the range of 
inferential pathways.

DMB said:
Are you now claiming that you did not (or do not) see these two 
passages as contradictory? I thought it was pretty clear that you 
were taking Marsha's claim seriously, mostly because you said it 
ought to be taken seriously.

Matt:
Perhaps I misperformed in the rhetorical situation to have misled 
you.  Perhaps what I should have said for you was that I see how 
these two passages [can be seen] as conflicting.  And because of the 
ease by which Marsha can add the "put" into the "not intended to be 
[put] within any philosophic tradition" clause, I tend to think it is 
worth seeing how the passage fits together when so taken, and to 
see just how a different (and I might add, better) interpretation of 
the passage can be offered.  I think Marsha' interpretation is 
strained at best.  But I do see how it works.

DMB said:
You can sensitively take this up any inferential path you like. It still 
validates an imaginary conflict...

Matt:
Well, as Dan might say, all conflicts are imaginary, which is why we 
need to consider alternative constructs to make sure we have the 
better imaginary one.

DMB said:
...and it's downright insulting to Pirsig.  You often act like Pirsig's 
thought would be improved by ignoring or dismissing some part of it. 
That is way too presumptuous and just plain offensive.

Matt:
That's interesting.  I doubt the philosopher who said that we should 
make sure to put the horse of philosophy ahead of the cart would be 
insulted by a "kibitzer" (his word for what he did in Lila's Child) who 
has their own sense of which philosophical claims are better or 
worse, and who wanted to see the chess moves play out before 
judging which are better or worse.  Was Pirsig being presumptuous 
and offensive to James when he suggested in Lila that James's 
pragmatism was a philosophy that a Nazi could use (and that his 
was an improvement because it couldn't)?  I don't find you 
presumptuous and offensive when you deride Rorty.  I don't think you 
understand him at all, but I do consider you to be exercising your 
autonomous rights as an individualist philosopher to choose who and 
what you take seriously and which claims you want to defend and 
attack.

DMB said:
And your denial only insults me.

Matt:
Well, that's not very hard.  You're just looking to be insulted by me.  
I'm really only trying to do it some of the times.  The other times, 
like this one, you're actually violating Pirsigian strictures by being 
insulted, suggesting that I cannot go my own way as a philosopher, 
and that I must kowtow like a professional philosophologist, which 
we all know is an absurd stereotype of something no one wants to 
be.

DMB said:
I know what you said. If you don't want to stand by it, then fine. But 
don't pretend you weren't playing along with Marsha's imaginary 
contradiction.

Matt:
Of course I was playing along.  That's how you determine whether 
an alternative inferential pattern is worth its salt or not.  I, 
apparently, also think there's a lot more thinking involved in 
philosophy than you do.  To recur to the chess metaphor again, 
you're like the person who judges a game by the static snapshot you 
see, rather than seeing how the game plays out or wanting to see 
how the players typically move their pieces.  Philosophy is about the 
playing, not about the pieces; it's about the players, not about the 
board.  I would have thought that someone who knows more about 
Zen Buddhism than I would've understood that.

DMB said:
"Seriously" was your word for how it ought to be taken. And if you 
can't or won't stand it, then just don't type it up and post it. Write it 
on little piece of paper, if  you must. But then burn it and bury the 
ashes.

Matt:
Yeah, good talk as always, Dave.

Matt