[MD] Taking words Seriously

[david buchanan]

Matt: You'll be glad to see that I have taken up only a very small, managable portion.


dmb said to Matt:
I'm asking you to address the similarities between the various names and descriptions of DQ because substance of the dispute is about DQ.  ...I'm annoyed when you delete all the various terms for DQ that I put on the table.  ...Pirsig and the other philosophers employ metaphors, analogies, imagery and other forms of figurative speech and that is why they use negative terms that describe what DQ is not.  ...The experience they're all talking about is pure or direct or immediate or primary (list of synonyms) in the sense that it is as yet unanalyzed, pre-intellectual, undifferentiated, undivided, pre-conceputal or pre-verbal (another list of synonyms).



Matt replied:
I want to point out that the second [last] sentence is an "is" predication of "pure," etc. and not an "is not" negative term description.  I say this to point out that I accept that "DQ itself can't be defined," and that one consequence of this, I think, is that we could be wrong about our "is" predications.  And by "we," I mean additionally James and Pirsig: anyone.  A word being a synonym does not mean we should just willy-nilly use it without reflection in our philosophical vocabularies.  We want to be self-conscious about what we mean and do not mean.


dmb says:

You're missing the point. I've gathered the descriptions of various philosophers as a means of carefully reflecting on the meaning of the central term. It's a comparative analysis of the central term. When we can see how other philosophers use their terms, it whittles away the ambiguity of the words and so you narrow down the range of possible meanings. The word "bank" can refer to two very different things, the edges of river or a financial institution. If I introduce synonyms like "shore" or "verge" when I talking about the "bank", then you know I'm not talking about cash or my credit union. That is the point of putting all the various terms for DQ on the table, to narrow down it's possible meaning. 

The last sentence, then, is extremely self-conscious about what DQ does and does not mean. The idea is to make it nearly impossible to misconstrue the meaning of Pirsig's central term. And yes, as the sentence is supposed to show, terms like "pure" and "direct" ARE negative in the sense that they are used by these philosophers. DQ is pure or direct in the sense that it is NOT differentiated, NOT conceptual, NOT divided. Gathering all these synonyms into one place isn't supposed to prove that anyone is right. It's only supposed to show exactly what they mean, to determine as exactly as possible what the term refers to. The metaphors are more fun and they offer a richness that can't really be captured by the negative philosophical terms, but the latter does allow a crisp precision that metaphors lack.  



Matt said:
 The second limited point I am here making is that every interpreter-philosopher should reserve the right to reject some of the predications, but not all, in order to clarify Pirsig's philosophical vision.  Nobody is perfect, and if one discovers an unharmonious note, it's imperative for the acolyte to extirpate it.

dmb says:
Well, in the case of the negative philosophical terms discussed above, there is really just one idea with many different ways to express it. They are all talking about experience in contrast to thought and reflection. If all the terms refer to this pre-intellectual experience and they all mean the same thing, then what would be the point in rejecting some terms but not the others? I love "light" but "illumination" must be extirpated? 


Matt said:
What I have not done here is say what, if any, bad notes Pirsig sounds.  I have a history of saying those things, but I have not the time nor energy to reconsider whether I still do.  I can't be perfectly sure.  This isn't to be disingenuous, and I'm not trying to escape from being held accountable for what I have said, but I want to be clear about what I am and am not saying _right now_, and if someone wishes to hold be accountable for something I've said in the past, you'd have to dig it out and ask me if I still think it.   I am not, in other words, accusing Pirsig or anyone of being a Platonist, SOMist, or user of the Myth of the Given.  I am advancing no criticism. ...




dmb says:
Well, okay. But that means that you've very recently given up a hobby that you had for ten years. Your accusations of Platonism are my main motivation in trying to explain DQ. I think you have to misunderstand the MOQ in general and DQ in particular to make that accusation. Steve does that too, by the way, and you very recently voiced agreement with him on that point. As one might expect, I'm a little skeptical about such a drastic and sudden change.