dear metaphysicians of quality:
> So, maybe now someone would like to quit debating these three oh so very
> deep propositions, and tell us something about the little matter of what
> Heidegger actually thought, and how it relates to Pirsig.
i'm not anywhere near attempting a systematic comparsion,
but here's some rambling tidbits and principles
heidegger's being = pirsig's value
in the first five pages of Being and Time,
confronted with many of the same prejudices
against writing a universal metaphysic as pirsig,
argues that as long as we re-cognize that
being cannot be reduced to beings
(equivalent to saying that Dynamic Quality
cannot be reduced to static qualities)
both seem tempted to say being/value
remains indefinable and self-evident,
pirsig of course changes his view from ZMM to Lila
for a reason heidegger explains well:
'the fact that we live already in an understanding of being
{in ZMM pirsig says we already know quality}
and that the meaning of being is
at the same time shrouded in darkness
{hence why Lila was necessary}
proves the fundamental necessity
of repeating the question of the meaning of being' (p4)
both admit that even universal metaphysics
is a provisional philosophical activity
both loath objectivity-obsessed anthropology
and critique positivistic science
both embrace direct experience as opposed to rationality
pirsig calls this 'empiricism' (again showing some ignorance)
heidegger calls this 'phenemonology'
instead of static quality's value heirarchy
heidegger invokes Da-sein
and delineates its charateristics for 200 pages
very roughly, h's wordliness correlates to inorganic quality,
h's being-in-the-world correlates to bio-social quality,
(h's 'the They' = p's 'the Giant')
and h's being-in as such correlates to intellectual quality
however this shows how clumsily pirsig's levels define existence
heidegger takes a less abstract,
more experience-grounded approach
better describing being in its 'everydayness'
for instance, where pirsig uses the example
of a child who grows up (starts at L:p137)
that's basically the whole structure of Being and Time
additionally telling of Angst, death, throwness, etc.
heidegger expands on pirsig's very brief
'take care of your goodness' (L:p467)
taking a more wholistic and unified outlook on being,
('the being whose analysis is our task is,
is always we ourselves' (p42)
and there's so much heidegger discusses
that has no equivalent in pirsig's 'philosophy'
that i don't know where to begin there
one passage ya'll might like,
corresponding somewhat to pirsig's denuniciation
of the Cartisian Me (p229)
"perception becomes definition ....
in directing itself toward and in grasping something,
Da-sein does not first go outside of the inner sphere
in which it is initially encapsulated,
but, rather, in its primary kind of being,
it is always already 'outside' together with some being
encountered in the world already discovered ...
the preception of what is know
does not take place as a return
with one's booty to the 'cabinet' of consciousness
after one has gone out and grasped it ...
even forgetting something, when every relation of being
to what was previously known seems to be extinguished,
must be understood as a modficiation of primordial being-in,
and this holds true for every deception and every error ...
knowing is a mode of Da-sein
which is founded in being-in-the-world." (p62)
or "insofar as certain distinctive domains of being
becomes visible in the course of this history
and henceforth chiefly dominate the range of problems
(descartes' ego cogito, subject, the 'I', reason, spirit, person),
the beings just cited remain unquestioned with respect to the being
and structure of their being, which indicates the thorough
neglect of the question of being" (p19)
see? most of pirsig's work is overly-simplistic and redundant
except in the amazingly erudite examination of insanity
(and i wish that's all he would have concentrated on)
and his only reason for that
is that pirsig went insane
where his personal experience doesn't aid him
he fumbles about, making some amply moronic statements
regarding american history and metaphysics
(e.g: his defense of capitalism and poverty
and his review of race relations should cause much laughter)
hmmmm ... reading heidegger's 'a question concerning technology'
and pirsig's conclusions regarding technology in ZMM
proved very interesting -
obviously heidegger is operating on a higher, ontological level
but p holds his own in something of a good debate
whereas pirsig seeks to unify technology and art,
heidegger sees a technological understanding of being as
the major perversion of art ... and everything else
one could conclude that pirsig actually moves us beyond
a technologcal understanding of being while keeping technology
after reading both, however, i still side with heidegger
of course :)
yes, heidegger is a difficult read
but that only makes you feel that much better
when you turn that last page
there's much much more to write on this subject
i'll end with their respective (corny) slogans:
'To the things themselves!' 'Good is a noun!'
:luv,kev
p.s:
has anyone written yet on nietzsche's
Apollo and Dionysus?
it really corresponds precisely to
static and Dynamic Quality
another day, i suppose
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
