Hi Arlo, Maybe this points to the difference between the intellectual and the wise man; somethings can simply be taught, wisdom needs to be recognized.
Marsha On Jun 19, 2010, at 12:40 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote: > [Mary] > ... as we can see, even amongst "us who are the enlightened" (meaning we've > all > at least read both books) there is little agreement on what exactly Mr. Pirsig > means. > > [Arlo] > This is a topic I've been struggling with a lot. Notwithstanding the "we hates > us them acerdimics" rhetoric, most authors (I've encountered) attempting to > not > only offer a new thesis but propose an entirely new metaphysics, spend a lot > of > time ensuring their particular vision is at the very least articulated > methodically to avoid confusion about what *they* mean. Certainly, there will > always be camps of dissent, and always those who reformulate what any given > author has said. But while many argue over what these authors said that was > "right" or "wrong", very few can actually argue what they "said". > > I appreciate Pirsig's intention of letting the MOQ organically evolve. All > theories should (and most do). But they do this regardless of what an "author" > says. Join the Peirce discuss group and you'll see many people arguing for > dropping this and altering that and expanding this and including that and > excluding this and... etc. But very few argue what Peirce "meant". > > Here I think Pirsig does more of a disservice than a service. His silence on > many of these issues has plunged the MOQ into a perpetual argument over what > he > himself was saying. Never mind extrapolating or expanding or evolving or > whatever. His fear of a "papal bull" has left instead an emptiness filled by > bickering. Where in a "normal" dialogue, we could say "Pirsig said that, but I > propose this", we are left spinning our wheels over what Pirsig said in the > first place. > > Thus we see Bo not claiming to revise the MOQ or evolve it into something > better, but to claim that his understanding IS the MOQ, that even Pirsig > doesn't understand what he wrote. I see this kind of stuff with no other > author, even the ones claimed to be "difficult" like Bourdieu. Instead of the > normal "Pirsig proposed this MOQ, but I, Bo, propose this other MOQ building > from Pirsig", we get "if we ignore this part of what Pirsig wrote, we can > claim > that this is what he really meant, and claim that those who disagree don't > understand him". > > > > > 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 ___ 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
