[MD] The Hero's journey

[Matt Kundert]

Matt said:
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:
No, Pirsig was addressing scholarly criticism that James's pragmatism 
has faced for a long time and it's not like I haven't cited books, papers 
and encyclopedia to criticize Rortyism, which you bring to this table by 
the way. You've only cited Marsha and your solution to her imaginary 
conflict, you said, is to dismiss or ignore one of the two passages. 
This move seems to presume that Pirsig needs help being coherent 
and instead give credence to Marsha's transparent attempt to piss 
on James. How can you fail to see her vindictive motives in this, 
Mr. Sensitivity? Do you think that represents and wise and 
responsible choice about who and what to take seriously? I don't. 

Matt:
I couldn't choose between three responses, so here's all three:

1) "Cited Marsha?"

2) "You have a very strange conception of when and how it is okay 
to disagree with a person.  (And no, Pirsig was making a criticism 
of James.)"

3) "Well, it was between taking you or Marsha seriously, so..."

Matt said:
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:
Huh? I just meant that your denials insult my intelligence. It's not 
about your freedom. It's just about denying your own claims and 
statements. It's not about philosophology.  It's just about you 
pretending that you weren't playing along with Marsha's imaginary 
contradiction. "Seriously" was your word for how it ought to be 
taken.

Matt:
Uh-hunh, I know what you meant, but sometimes I don't think you 
really grasp the wider implications of your mode of conversation.

Matt said:
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:
Huh?

If philosophy is like playing a game, then I think you're trying to take 
moves back and then pretending you never made them. I think that's 
cheating. 

Matt:
Yeah, I know you think I'm a cheater.  But sometimes I think that's 
only because you think you're playing checkers, so when you see 
me move my knight, you get really upset.

As always,

Matt