Nice catch Arlo, I was delighted somebody out there has read Carse as well.
>
> Many times when I read Carse I thought he must have been influenced by
> Pirsig. I see John (in ZMM) as a "finite mechanic", Pirsig himself as an
> "infinite mechanic". John only cares about the "win scenario" (the bike is
> working), for Pirsig the maintenance is to cultivate a deeper relationship
> with the motorcycle. For John, his relationship with his motorcycle is
> "command", he tells it what to do and it should do it. For Pirsig it's
> "address", a dialogic, ongoing exchange that seeks to bring these two
> interlocutors into a harmonious relationship.
Interesting, because when I read Lila, I thought I caught glimpses of an
influence of Carse upon Pirsig. Both may possibly be true. Finite and
Infinite Games was published in 1987, right between ZAMM and Lila.
>
>
> I think this idea "address" ties nicely with Bakhtin's notion of
> "dialogism", seeing all language as "responsive to" and "expectant of" its
> place in the historical narrative (what Carse might call the "infinite
> narrative"). From Wikipedia, "This means that everything anybody ever says
> always exists in response to things that have been said before and in
> anticipation of things that will be said in response. We never, in other
> words, speak in a vacuum. As a result, all language (and the ideas which
> language contains and communicates) is dynamic, relational and engaged in a
> process of endless redescriptions of the world."
Beautiful. Carse just started a blog this year, here's a snippet that I
found interesting and congruent to "wranglin' with Rigels":
Serious believers are generally eager to supply you with a catalog of their
dearest convictions. They do not just hold positions, they declare them. It
is of great importance to them that you know their views. And they are
usually presented in a way meant to convince you of their truth, as if your
own are variant, if not plainly false. Notice that their beliefs look in two
directions at once: every one of them is perfectly matched with a
corresponding unbelief. They are as concerned with what they do not believe
as with what they do. Belief, in other words, is always belief against.
Because beliefs are so well matched with their opposites, they not only
focus on the resistance of others, they are dependent on it. When that
opposition fades so does the passion with which one’s own belief is held. To
be an atheist you will need to find just the right theist to face off
against. How could one deny the existence of God unless someone supplies a
God that can be denied? The odd consequence of this is that one cannot be a
believer without simultaneously being an unbeliever. Believing is an
inherently self-contradictory act.
Understanding the agreements on rules between us is so vital to any
philosophical undertaking. In another discussion with Ham, who was
complaining about arguments grinding on in this forum, it seems to me that
if you take philosophy as a finite game with winners, then you'll never get
anywhere because its so easy for either side to conveniently misunderstand
and misconstrue the opposition in the interest of scoring points.
While if approached as an infinite game, we will "get" somewhere but not in
any ego-serving way. It's a paradox because the finite game goes nowhere
and the infinite game grows outward and inward.
--
------------
Doing Good IS Being
------------
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
