[John] And scores! Because of course! Who would? We can judge pretty accurately what Pirsig would want - Quality.
[Arlo] Sure. My point, again, is only that Pirsig has not only endorsed the "academics" here, but continues to interact with them. I hardly think one could chastize these "academics" for "philosophology". [John] And thus Platt's point about Pirsig NOT wanting "what would bob do" academically codified, defined and warped into a static object of intellectual encapsulation, is true. [Arlo] Again, I think the evidence shows "Bob" is not only interested in seeing the MOQ adopted by university philosophy programs, his involvement with Ant and DMB has shown he is actively supporting it. No, of course this forum should never be "what would Bob do", or some sycophantic reciting of Holy Writ. I disagree with Pirsig on several points, and have just said twice how I think Bo should be commended for his consistency (perhaps tenacity) in offering his particular revision. But there is a myth here in your words, John, and that is that LILA is somehow not "a static object of intellectual encapsulation". This is precisely what the MOQ is, indeed it is what Pirsig says the MOQ is! The thing is, all intellectual patterns are always dialogically evolving. There is a risk, always, to turning metaphor into Writ, but the converse is to run around eternally shouting nonsensical tangents. That's fine, of course, but it hardly advances Pirsig's goal of seeing the MOQ evolve intellectually. [John] And it is in that vein that I think Platt is closer to the heart than any reliance upon any static authority figure. Be it Pirsig himself or any past-designated acolytes. [Arlo] This saddens me, John, in a big way. But if you feel this way, you feel this way. All I know is, if I were genuinely interested in what Pirsig is saying, I'd listen to the people Pirsig said understand his work the best. I might disagree with them, but I wouldn't select someone with a partial (I am being kind) grasp of his works, and a motis operandi that is little more than "demonize them evil libs". [John] And tell me, oh teacher of men, what increases learning? Arrogant encapsulations of academic status, or humble seeking of truth? [Arlo] Jeez. Arrogant? Arrogance serves no one, neither the learned nor the profane; neither those who seek knowledge, nor those who champion ignorance. By the way, lest you get too high on that "perfessers are bad, mmmkay" platform yourself, I'd consider YOU to be among the few here are readily and often engage in very high academic level discourse. I'm not talking about "professional academics" when I say academics, but anyone interested in pursuing learning and knowledge. So when you bust on me for supporting "academics" in the dialogue here, you are (in a bit of irony) busting on yourself. I mean, c'mon, you spend all this time developing and trying to synthesize Royce and others with Pirsig's work, an *academic* activity if there ever was one, and then come out in support of someone who's "discourse" consists of "cats are cuddly" and "Obozo supports death panels". Alright, perhaps I'm being a bit snarky there, but really, you are so far above that. [John] At the very least, you need both. [Arlo] Yeah, you do. Which is why I never criticize Marsha's "meows" or anyone's posting poetry, or even the social happy happy joy joy posts of camaraderie building. This should be a fun list, and there is nothing wrong even with Platt's posting his "random thoughts". Did I criticize that when he does it? Nope. But when he, in turn, posts another boring diatribe about how evil academics are killing the list, I can't help but point out that the academics are far more endorsed by Pirsig that his little Limbaughian masturbation session. 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/md/archives.html
