[MD] Criticism

[John Carl]

I've mentioned before my acquaintance with Randall Auxier, well that book
on Whitehead had a glossary by Auxier, so I asked him about the
Pirsig/Whitehead connection.  This was his take on it...

RA:

"When Pirsig was in school, everybody read Whitehead. Zero chance he didn't
read Whitehead. Especially at Chicago, which was Whitehead Central. Perhaps
now you are beginning to understand why I am not so interested in Pirsig. I
work on the real thing.

I hope you are reading MY edition of Religion in the Making (Fordham
University Press, 1996) . . . It is far superior to the older editions. It
has a 90 pp. glossary by me. The glossary teaches you how to read
Whitehead."

jc:

I argued with Randy on this.  He seems to get over-confident in his
assertions sometimes - the professor disease - you basically are the expert
in every discussion, I said Pirsig had a lot on his plate at the time...
etc.  But Randy shot back...

RA:

Zero. Chicago wasn't analytical at that time, and McKeon despised
analytical philosophy. That day and age at U Chicago was 100% process
philosophy, both in the Phil. dept and in every committee, including the
Divinity School. The list of process-professors is endless. Zero.

jc:

But I still believe that there was enough going on at the time to keep
Pirsig from reading Whitehead or the right parts of Whitehead.    Perhaps
he absorbed a bit in a second-hand way, but ... sure he didn't steal the
term "metaphysics of quality" from Whitehead?

 I think Randy is wrong, but I am having a hard time convincing  him. It
makes me think, if  this is what the academic world does to its
philosophers, just makes them hard-headed  then Pirsig was smart to stay
well shut of it all!

But I still want to prove them all wrong.    I guess that's the part of
philosophy that's as degenerate as booze and ladies, the part that really,
really wants to prove hard-heads wrong.