[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:42 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Heya Dan.
>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:22 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dan:
>
>> At the same time, however, we have the advantage with the MOQ of
>> having Robert Pirsig's novel backing up his ideas. Maybe that's the
>> great thing about writing... it is a way of sharing what is uniquely
>> us with the world at large. Even then, people are apt to take what we
>> say not as we mean it but as what they think we mean.
>>
>
> Jc:  I think you are right, but mainly about that unifying effect of a
> narrative story - the novel is a story unfolding in time, and thus as
> true to itself, a species of truth which speaks analogously to higher
> truth.  Analysis and philosophology are great at picking apart this
> process, after the fact, but the cutting edge of human evolution is
> artistic in nature, not analytic.

Dan:
I tend to disagree with this. A novel is a lie. It is a fictitious
story, not the truth in any sense of the word. Each person who reads
it will take from the pages that which they are familiar with and
leave the rest behind. Sort of like experience. I remember reading in
the Guidebook to ZMM how Chris was upset when he read ZMM for the
first time. He said: but that's not how it happened at all! He had his
own narrative in mind and it didn't balance with what he read.


>Dan
>> Hemingway comes to mind. His book The Old Man and the Sea is taught in
>> school as man's struggle against inhuman forces impinging upon his
>> reality while he himself said its just a story about a man having a
>> bad day fishing.
>
>
> Jc:  Great stories are open to many different interpretations.  That's
> what makes them great.  I also think the writer ought to be tuned in
> to what might be deemed "common problems".  Every culture has them and
> artists are those that express their problems in a way everybody else
> (or at least many people) can understand.

Dan:
Well said.

>
>>
>> Dan:
>> I like to think a well-developed argument is more than simply poking
>> and prodding ideas to see what happens. In the end, the two sides
>> should hopefully move toward each other though many times one side
>> must be willing to make that first step.
>
>
> Jc:  I think the first step should be made toward truth.  That is, the
> idea of a truth, to be sought.  This is just what I'd deem, the gentle
> minimum for dialogue.  The second step is to aknowledge that each of
> us owns a partial truth, that we need others to confirm our truths.
> Truth is an ideal object, in a social game.  The "game" though, is
> quite serious.
>
> Allen Watts, in Psychotherapy East and West, says the great social
> delusion, at the basis of all suffering, East and West, is to take the
> game seriously, in the wrong way.  and thus, not take the play,
> seriously enough!

Dan:
I guess it'd depend on what play we're talking about... right?

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>> Jc:  Well, all that might come true, and the world will be speaking
>> >>> Chinese, the way things are going...
>> >>
>> >> Dan:
>> >> And is there something inherently wrong with that?
>> >
>> >
>> > Jc:  No, but it'd be different than what we expect in the present!  I
>> > really don't think we can think about the future in a concrete way.
>> > Probably the best thing would be to think of the future we'd like to
>> > live, and think about that.
>>
>> Dan:
>> I pretty much focus on the now these days. The future? Eh. It might or
>> might not unfold the way I'd like. The past? Eh. Same thing. It's
>> continually changing in regards to now.
>>
>
> Jc:  You can't just think about any one - the triune reality we deal
> with involves all three in constant flux and communication.  The
> relation of time and thought, is what Randy's book was mostly about.

Dan:
Nope. I beg to differ. I do believe that is the game that Alan Watts
was talking about. Most people play the tomorrow game... I'll write my
book... tomorrow... I'll be a better person... tomorrow. And at the
same time, they tend to think yesterday is dead. That nothing will
ever change what's already happened. They never realize that all those
tomorrows and yesterdays amount to nothing in the end. They're stuck
playing the wrong game, seriously. And if that's what Randy is on
about... too bad.

>
>
>> >
>> >> Dan:
>> >> That would take way more effort than I'm willing to commit. I tend to
>> >> believe lots of people lump the work of Robert Pirsig into many other
>> >> philosophers in order to say: there... I've got it. This is what he
>> >> means... just the same as Emerson, Dewey, James, Whitehead, and on and
>> >> on. To me, that is a grave mistake. But then again, that's just my
>> >> opinion.
>> >
>> > Jc:  Of course it's just your opinion, as mine is as well.  Why is it
>> > a grave mistake?  Pirsig himself did it!  When reading the Tao, when
>> > reading James, he came upon the maps of other great thinkers and
>> > rejoiced to find niches of congruence.  Why is that a bad thing?  Do
>> > you think Pirsig would get lost in a crowd?  Man, it's just the
>> > opposite.  The crowd is noticed, the man is ignored.  Ideas need
>> > crowds.
>>
>> Dan:
>> I don't know about that. If an idea is good, it'll shine of its own
>> accord whether or not the crowd gets it.
>
> Jc:  I should quote you from ZAMM: "It's asinine, neh?".   So this
> idea, or intellectual pattern just sits there, "shining" with nobody
> to notice or care?   No, you know that isn't true... so it comes down
> to the individual's appreciation vs. the crowd's appreciation.  But
> the thing is, if the crowd NEVER takes a "shine" to an idea, it dies.
> It is with some crowd in mind, that publishers and librarians say yes
> to a set of ideas.   without that consideration of social usefulness,
> all ideas fail to live.

Dan:
Somebody noticed. Otherwise, the idea wouldn't exist. See, ideas pull
people up to the next level. It is easy to think they filter down, but
that's not how the intellectual level operates. As I said before,
Einstein toiled away in virtual obscurity for years before his ideas
caught hold. It wasn't that the theory of relativity leaked down to
the masses... rather, a few people finally noticed what Einstein was
on about and stepped up to that level.

>
> Dan:
>
>>I read somewhere that it took
>> fifteen years for the scientific community to realize Einstein had
>> come up with a revolutionary new idea. All that time, he spent working
>> as a patent clerk... a quiet occupation that allowed him time to work
>> on his ideas basically in isolation.
>
> Jc:  "scientific community" -  Without that assent,  you would never
> have heard of the name "Einstein".    Truly though, the interplay
> between the individual and the review of the peers, is a deeply
> complex relation with lots of intermingling desires and values.   I'm
> not saying the individual appreciation of ideas is irrelevant.
> Goodness no!  I'm simply pointing out that  intellectual patterns are
> certain NOT independent of social acceptance.

Dan:
Intellectual patterns grow from the social level but acceptance has
nothing to do with them. In fact, social level patterns can be seen as
in direct opposition to intellectual patterns. In Lila, the Victorian
culture is a prime example.

>
> Dan:
>
> >From what I understand, Robert
>> Pirsig was pretty much a loner too during his work on both ZMM and
>> Lila. It wasn't that their ideas needed crowds so much as it was they
>> attracted crowds when noticed.
>>
>
> Jc:  I'm going a bit deeper and pointing to the underlying social
> framework of the problems Pirsig was trying to solve.  The fact that
> his work did attract crowds, means his ideas "won".  He succeeded in
> expressing the solution of his generation.  On a person level, I'm
> sure he wasn't motivated to be a popular success or cater to the
> shallow needs of any crowd.  If that was the case, he'd  have sold out
> to Redford in that New York hotel room.

Dan:
He did. Remember? He told Redford he had the rights to the book. It
was only later that the details never got ironed out.

>JC:
> This is a big topic with me.  It was probably that passage, more than
> any other that so endeared me to Pirsig's work.  It dovetails
> perfectly with an insight of Jacques Ellul's, that there are two human
> frames of reference - images and words and these two realms coincide
> with two different terms - Truth and Reality.  But Pirsig adds the
> idea that Truth is intellectual, and Reality is social.   What an
> amazing insight.  which nobody much gets.  All I know is that its an
> insight that earned MY life-long loyalty.

Dan:
If I am not mistaken, reality is made up of all four levels, plus
undefined Dynamic Quality. It is not confined to social patterns. Be
that as it may, as a writer, I use words to form images. I paint
pictures with my stories.



> Jc prev:
>
>> > I'd like to hear your response to  Pirsig's willingness to find
>> > congruence in other writers,  and consider the question if it's a
>> > valid enterprise then, to explore more of what he found exactly in
>> > James, that he considered so good.
>>
>> Dan:
>> "I also have a concern of my own. This is the concern that
>> philosophers, instead of coming to grips with the philosophy at hand,
>> sometimes dismiss it by saying, “Oh he is saying the same as someone
>> else,” or “someone else has said it much better.” This is the latter
>> half of the well known conservative argument that some new idea is (a)
>> no good because it hasn't been heard before or (b) it is no good
>> because it has been heard before. If, as has been noted by R.C.
>> Zaehner, once the Oxford University Professor of Eastern Religions and
>> Ethics, I am saying the same thing as Aristotle; and if, as has been
>> noted in the Harvard Educational Review, I am saying the same thing as
>> William James; and if as has been noted now that I may be saying the
>> same thing as Spinoza: then why has no one ever noticed that Aristotle
>> and Spinoza and William James are all saying the same thing?"
>>
>> [Robert Pirsig, A Brief Summary of the Metaphysics of Quality,
>> http://robertpirsig.org/Intro.html]
>>
>
> Jc:  (splutters)  But Dan!  That's my point entirely!  Why has nobody
> noticed that Aristotle, James and Pirisig (and the Primal Americans)
> are saying the same thing??

Dan:
Didn't you read the quote? That is precisely what Robert Pirsig is
objecting to... that people claim he's saying the same thing as
Aristotle... as James... as etc. Not sure what your point is here.

>JC:
> Be assured however, that I don't denigrate Pirsig's work because I
> find congruence with mainstream Pragmatism.  I find affirmation and
> importance in this fact, not derogation.  Pirsig's work IS original
> because he presents his thoughts in Novel form and takes us by the
> hand so that step by step we are led to undertand his conclusions
> clearly and exactly.  The interesting philosophilogical fact that
> great minds before him have harmonized with his message is just icing
> on the cake, imo.

Dan:
By claiming he is simply rehashing other philosophers' work you are
effectively refusing to see anything original about the MOQ.

>
>> Dan comments:
>> This is what I'm getting at... none of us are living in a vacuum and
>> yes it's enticing to search for congruence between the MOQ and the
>> work of other philosophers, but at the same time we shouldn't allow
>> that to overshadow the intricacies of the MOQ. If Robert Pirsig is
>> saying the same thing as James and Royce and a hundred other thinkers,
>> then what part of the MOQ is actually original? Any of it? And if all
>> Pirsig's thoughts are simply a regurgitation of old ideas, why are we
>> bothering with it at all? Why not simply read James and Royce and be
>> done with it?
>
> Jc:  For one thing, the words need to be interpreted for a new
> generation.  James and Royce were talking to their culture and Pirsig
> is addressing ours.  But the perennial nature of  truth, keeps
> cropping up in all contexts.

Dan:
I think there is a difference between perennial philosophy and saying
the same thing. Perennial philosophy is what's beneath the surface.
It's sort of like saying the English language and the Spanish language
say the same thing. In one sense, they do. But in a deeper sense, each
language is original in its own right and to conflate them is to do
each a disservice.

>
> Dan:
>
>>
>> On the other hand, if the MOQ does offer something original, why
>> attempt to cover it up by bringing in other philosophers and saying:
>> There! He's saying exactly what James is saying! Sure, Pirsig is
>> simply mimicking Royce and his Absolute.
>>
>
> Jc:  No, I don't believe that.  For one thing, mimicry would imply
> that Pirsig read Royce.  And before the new millennium, I doubt
> anybody had read Royce.

Dan:
Ah. So his ideas were just sitting there all by themselves? With
nobody noticing them? Sound familiar?

JC:
> Truly, I'm not trying to advance either
> Pirsig OR Royce as  persons.  I'm trying to advance the ideas they
> both expressed.

Dan:
As I said, I write. And in doing so, I'm always on the lookout for
oddballs. Some time ago I read about this guy... pretty nasty sort of
brute. Killed a lot of people. Didn't care about anyone or anything.
Went to prison not once but many times. Killed inmates and guards
alike. Anyone who messed with him.

Seems that one of the guards noticed this fellow didn't have
anything... no friends, no family, no money for the commissary. So he
loans the guy a buck. This was back when a dollar was a dollar.
Anyway. The two get to be friends. The guard begins bringing the
convict paper to write his life story.

Eventually the guy is executed for his many and sordid crimes and the
guard quits. He spends forty years trying to get the manuscript
published and he finally succeeds. They say it was actually a pretty
well written book considering the author had no schooling to speak of.

Being the inquisitive sort I of course searched everywhere for a copy
but there are none to be found. Seems as if the man and his ideas
cannot be separated. Since the man was deemed incorrigible, so were
his ideas. If Robert Pirsig was really a madman, would we have ever
heard of him? Doubtfully.

>
> Dan:
>
>> I happen to believe the MOQ does offer something new. Does it expand
>> on previously held ideas? Of course it does. But to say those ideas
>> correspond to and are congruent with the MOQ is to do not only Robert
>> Pirsig a disservice, but yourself. By hiding one's head in the sands
>> of yesterday, the light of today will never reach you.
>>
>
> Jc:  I understand your trepidation, I think.  It's not enough to bury
> our heads in books of olden times.  The future of the world depends
> upon the decisions in the now.  Part of my fascination with Royce and
> Pirsig both is the way they were both significantly ignored by
> academia.  It's like diagnosing a patient in psychotherapy -  what is
> being repressed is more significant than what is overtly expressed.

Dan:
Yeah, I'm pretty much ignored by academia too. :-)

Thanks, John!

Dan

http://www.danglover.com