Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences
Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences
Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
human life, <strong>the</strong> violent condition of <strong>the</strong> poor vs. <strong>the</strong> obliviousness<br />
of <strong>the</strong> rich, etc., i.e. an atmosphere <strong>in</strong> addition to<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation it conveys. Although <strong>the</strong> beware pickpockets<br />
sign is not great literature, for Forester <strong>the</strong> atmosphere<br />
it creates is <strong>the</strong> realm of great literature. Although great<br />
literature may conta<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation, e.g. Zen <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Art of<br />
Motorcycle Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance about motorcycles, it is <strong>in</strong>sufficient<br />
to be successfully applied by us to actually repair a<br />
motorcycle (Pirsig even says so <strong>in</strong> his author’s note). So<br />
what is atmosphere <strong>and</strong> how do we gauge its usefulness?<br />
Atmosphere stems not from someth<strong>in</strong>g conveyed through<br />
particular words, but <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir arrangement, <strong>the</strong>ir style. In<br />
this lies <strong>the</strong>ir power to elicit dread, mirth <strong>and</strong> calm, possibly<br />
even simultaneously. The realm of atmosphere is one that<br />
“answers to its own laws, supports itself, <strong>in</strong>ternally coheres,<br />
<strong>and</strong> has a new st<strong>and</strong>ard of truth.”(p. 81) The truth of<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation is its accuracy, <strong>the</strong> truth of a poem whe<strong>the</strong>r it<br />
“hangs toge<strong>the</strong>r”. (p. 81) “Information po<strong>in</strong>ts to someth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
else. A poem po<strong>in</strong>ts to noth<strong>in</strong>g but itself. Information is<br />
relative. A poem is absolute.” (p.81)<br />
Just as words have two functions, for Forster “each<br />
human m<strong>in</strong>d has two personalities, one on <strong>the</strong> surface,<br />
one deeper down”. (p. 82) The surface personality “has a<br />
name” such as Robert Pirsig. It is this personality that lives<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world, has idiosyncratic habits, relationships, trials<br />
<strong>and</strong> tribulations of <strong>the</strong> everyday variety. The o<strong>the</strong>r, is trickier<br />
to p<strong>in</strong> down, for it has no name <strong>and</strong> its depths are a<br />
ground spr<strong>in</strong>g runn<strong>in</strong>g through <strong>the</strong> deep personalities of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Pirsigs <strong>and</strong> Dickenses of this world. It is someth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
general to all humans <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>spires works general <strong>and</strong> accessible<br />
to all <strong>and</strong> often across time. And <strong>in</strong> this lies <strong>the</strong><br />
anonymity of great literature: “The poet wrote <strong>the</strong> poem, no<br />
doubt, but he forgot himself while he wrote it, <strong>and</strong> we forget<br />
him while we read.” (p. 83). For Forster a signature<br />
belongs to <strong>the</strong> world of <strong>in</strong>formation, to <strong>the</strong> surface personality.<br />
The anonymity of great literature belongs to <strong>the</strong> realm<br />
of atmosphere, to deep personality.<br />
4. Wittgenste<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Life of Words <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Literar<strong>in</strong>ess of Language<br />
In <strong>the</strong> end, <strong>the</strong> sanity of Pirsig’s I character follows suite<br />
with <strong>the</strong> ghost of his previous self. Although Wittgenste<strong>in</strong><br />
does not write much about <strong>in</strong>sanity, some well know<br />
phrases from Philosophical Investigations about search<strong>in</strong>g<br />
for hidden essences can be taken as a case <strong>in</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t, such<br />
as be<strong>in</strong>g on slippery ice with no friction (§107) <strong>in</strong> relation to<br />
<strong>the</strong> sublimity of logic <strong>and</strong> reach<strong>in</strong>g a po<strong>in</strong>t when one’s<br />
spade is turned (§217) <strong>in</strong> relation to <strong>the</strong> regress of rulefollow<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
When Phaedrus cont<strong>in</strong>ued digg<strong>in</strong>g even after his<br />
spade reached bedrock, he lost friction with reality <strong>and</strong><br />
went sp<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g away from <strong>in</strong>stead of toward it. Both Pirsig’s<br />
I character, Polanyi <strong>and</strong> Forster each <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own fashion<br />
partake of this error of classical underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>gs ‘depth’<br />
th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, that mean<strong>in</strong>g itself or its generation are someth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
that come from <strong>in</strong>side of us: <strong>the</strong> I character for hold<strong>in</strong>g<br />
that <strong>the</strong> motorcycle is ‘a system of concepts’ that ‘is<br />
primarily a mental phenomenon’, <strong>the</strong> underly<strong>in</strong>g gestalt<br />
urge of Polanyi’s scientific <strong>in</strong>tuition, <strong>and</strong> Forester’s depth<br />
personality as <strong>the</strong> source of literary anonymity. However,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y each offer someth<strong>in</strong>g I th<strong>in</strong>k not only <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with Wittgenste<strong>in</strong>’s<br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistic turn on rationality but can help to illustrate<br />
it.<br />
If we are to carry a lesson regard<strong>in</strong>g language <strong>and</strong><br />
reality from Pirsig’s novel, a h<strong>and</strong>s-on metaphor of<br />
‘t<strong>in</strong>ker<strong>in</strong>g’ is where <strong>the</strong> I character successfully overcame<br />
<strong>the</strong> classical/romantic split he saw <strong>in</strong> underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g. Yet<br />
on <strong>the</strong> scale of language as a whole, t<strong>in</strong>ker<strong>in</strong>g has its<br />
Science <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Art of Language Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance — Deirdre C.P. Smith<br />
limits. When confronted with Z<strong>and</strong>e witchcraft, no slight<br />
adjustment or hon<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>tellectual scalpel will lead<br />
westerners to accept <strong>the</strong> judgment of <strong>the</strong> poison oracle. It<br />
will simply not cut that way due to its mode of fabrication.<br />
We would need a different scalpel or an altoge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
different <strong>in</strong>strument to be at one with <strong>the</strong> Z<strong>and</strong>e’s<br />
conceptions of <strong>the</strong> world. But does this not imply that we<br />
can nei<strong>the</strong>r redirect nor exp<strong>and</strong> our rationality?<br />
This is where Forster’s <strong>in</strong>formation – atmosphere<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>uum <strong>and</strong> connect<strong>in</strong>g anonymity to atmosphere are<br />
illustrative. I hope <strong>the</strong> reader can agree that language<br />
conveys <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>and</strong> atmosphere. Wittgenste<strong>in</strong>’s<br />
arguments aga<strong>in</strong>st private language are <strong>in</strong> part a defense<br />
of it also requir<strong>in</strong>g anonymity. Yet we saw above that an<br />
objection to classical underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g was <strong>the</strong> lack of a<br />
subject. Forster’s solution was an <strong>in</strong>ternal ‘ur’ subject<br />
runn<strong>in</strong>g through us all which f<strong>in</strong>ds its expression <strong>in</strong><br />
atmosphere. For Wittgenste<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>d of anonymity we<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> language comes nei<strong>the</strong>r through a depth<br />
personality, nor a special place where words live <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
m<strong>in</strong>d. Even though Virg<strong>in</strong>ia Woolf <strong>in</strong> her essay<br />
“Craftsmanship” claims <strong>the</strong> later, she also writes <strong>the</strong><br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g which I th<strong>in</strong>k approaches Wittgenste<strong>in</strong>’s view:<br />
“Words, English words, are full of echoes, of memories,<br />
of associations–naturally. They have been out<br />
<strong>and</strong> about, on people’s lips, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir houses, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
streets, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> fields, for so many centuries. And that<br />
is one of <strong>the</strong> chief difficulties <strong>in</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m today—that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are so stored with mean<strong>in</strong>gs, with<br />
memories, that <strong>the</strong>y have contracted so many famous<br />
marriages.” (p. 131)<br />
Earlier <strong>in</strong> this essay Woolf writes regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> ‘usefulness’<br />
of words. Mak<strong>in</strong>g a word useful is to give it a s<strong>in</strong>gle mean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Forc<strong>in</strong>g words to be useful is a problem. Do<strong>in</strong>g so<br />
causes <strong>the</strong>m to mislead us s<strong>in</strong>ce “it is <strong>the</strong>ir nature not to<br />
express one simple statement but a thous<strong>and</strong> possibilities.”<br />
(p. 127) Put ano<strong>the</strong>r way, language at <strong>the</strong> pure <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
end of Forster’s cont<strong>in</strong>uum conveys nei<strong>the</strong>r accurate<br />
nor <strong>in</strong>accurate <strong>in</strong>formation s<strong>in</strong>ce it is stripped of <strong>the</strong><br />
use generated atmosphere aga<strong>in</strong>st which accuracy could<br />
be determ<strong>in</strong>ed; even a tram “Stop.” sign has atmosphere.<br />
The l<strong>in</strong>guistic turn of Wittgenste<strong>in</strong>’s redirection of<br />
rationality is ak<strong>in</strong> to Forster’s atmosphere <strong>and</strong> Woolf’s<br />
depiction of <strong>the</strong> life of words. Pirsig’s I character makes <strong>the</strong><br />
mistake of attribut<strong>in</strong>g this multifarious character of words to<br />
a mental <strong>in</strong>strument unlimited <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> directions it can cut. It<br />
is ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> case that we can divide th<strong>in</strong>gs up differently<br />
because words, our concepts, do not have s<strong>in</strong>gle<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>gs. <strong>Philosophy</strong> which carves concepts <strong>in</strong>tellectually<br />
or claims <strong>the</strong>y can or should have such s<strong>in</strong>gle mean<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
goes wrong. Yes, we must know <strong>the</strong> system, only that <strong>the</strong><br />
system we need to know to ‘t<strong>in</strong>ker’ <strong>in</strong> language, as Polyani<br />
recognized, is nei<strong>the</strong>r explicit nor explicable hierarchically,<br />
we must live it. Concepts are anonymous, but not <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
logical or scientific fashion of generality/universality.<br />
Mean<strong>in</strong>g is on <strong>the</strong> surface but, although it sounds strange,<br />
deeply <strong>the</strong>re, i.e. over time. Although this k<strong>in</strong>d of mean<strong>in</strong>g<br />
is anonymous, it is not stripped of <strong>the</strong> subject like classical<br />
underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore, not of value judgments.<br />
Subjects are vehicles for <strong>the</strong> reproduction of language <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir use of words <strong>and</strong> phrases t<strong>in</strong>ker with <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>e tune<br />
it. Although we can use language like <strong>the</strong> poet, forgett<strong>in</strong>g<br />
ourselves, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> listener hear our words as general not<br />
subjective statements, we are not be<strong>in</strong>g poetic, we are<br />
simply us<strong>in</strong>g words conventionally. But <strong>the</strong> convention<br />
came from somewhere <strong>and</strong> this is where <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir idiosyncratic position <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world can make a last<strong>in</strong>g<br />
contribution.<br />
329