[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
The post was aimed at Matt and the ideal reader is basically a device whereby you project your own standards of excellence onto a fictional reader and then write for him.


Matt replied:
Now that you mention it again, I wasn't quite sure what you were meaning to convey to me by writing about the ideal reader.  Was it to say that you understand now what I had meant about amateur philosophers beginning by introspecting about their own standards? Was it a signal of agreement?


dmb says:

I don't understand your notion well enough to agree or disagree. Your view hinges on a point that seems irrelevant to me. Amateur philosophers don't HAVE standards, you say. Instead they ARE standards. I honestly don't get the point of that and you still haven't explained it. Come to think of it, maybe that way of putting it is too soft.

As I see it, the question is about the best way to operate as an amateur philosopher and the answer is about what it takes to be creative and original and otherwise find your own way to that goal. I agree with Pirsig's denial of the independent Cartesian self and with Pirsig's description of the self but I don't see how that even addresses question, let alone serves as an answer to it. To my mind, it's just a non-sequitor that goes something like this: 

The question: What is the secret to creative excellence?

Your answer: Descartes was wrong about the nature of the self.

My reaction: Huh? What's that got to do with it?