[John] Fair enough. I think you're absolutely right that metaphysical formulation SHOULD be crisply defined, but I don't agree that this process is best accomplished by Pirsig issuing occasional corrections.
[Arlo] Before I get into this more, I want to say that it seems to me that the majority of our disagreements tend to be arguing what may be minutia, so this may smack as a bit of nitpickery. :-) Okay. My point is that any author attempts to build an edifice. Others, sometimes in agreement, sometimes in disagreement, use that edifice to build other edifices; sometimes "add ons", sometimes a new floor, sometimes just cosmetic remodeling, and sometimes tearing the whole thing down to its foundation and building an entirely new structure. For this to happen, there needs to be more-or-less agreement on what the author's initial edifice is. Before critiquing Peirce's semiosis, I need to be fairly confident I understand exactly what Peirce means when he says "icon" or "sign". If there is enough swaggle room that one person can say "icon means cheese" and another who says it refers to "hamsters", then how on earth can Peirce's ideas provide a foundation from which to evolve? This is why the majority of author's writing this type of stuff are very prolific. They want to be understood. People can agree or disagree with Peirce's concept of "icon", but no one can say that with that term he is referring to "hamsters". [John] I think this process is best accomplished by us hashing out, "how it ought to be". [Arlo] But that is how it is in every discussion or community-of-thought there is. No one reads Peirce as if its sacred holy writ, and many have built a great deal from his ideas (sometimes rejecting some, other times embracing them). I am not saying there needs to be "One MOQ to Rule Them All", a MOQ articulated by Pirsig and no other. This is why I see the Bo issue as tension between "Pirsig's MOQ" and "Bo's MOQ", and as such there is little problem. The *problem* is precisely that areas of confusion have left both camps arguing over claims to be "the MOQ". You never hear Bo or his cadre admit that Bo's MOQ is a departure from Pirsig's, you hear them say that the MOQ Pirsig intended to write is Bo's (if only one ignore and revise sections of his work). This is where I give Ham full-credit. He doesn't try to convince anyone that his work is really the valid reading of Pirsig, he says "this is mine, and that is his". But with the Bo situation, its not about saying "I, Bo, developed a new and different, and better, MOQ than Pirsig. I'd like to talk about my MOQ because I think Pirsig's MOQ is wrong". Instead, well.. you've read the banter. [John] However, this raises the question whether or not Pirsig should be part of our process. Whether he's one of "us". [Arlo] He should be, I believe. [John] I believe quite firmly that he is involved in this project and these discussions. That there are people here who "get it" and these people to a great extent channel Pirsig's thinking. I even believe one of these people is you, Arlo. And one of them is me. Bob is with us. [Arlo] Don't misunderstand, I don't think Pirsig would do anything to undermine or lend difficulty to the dialogue surrounding his work. I think he likely firmly believes that would be participate more he would do damage. I disagree with that. But yes, I am also not saying he is totally isolated from the context. His involvement with Ant, for example, has been as open and supportive and an author could be. I think Ant is to be praised for bringing us more and more insights via Pirsig's correspondences and involvement with him. Maybe what I want is another book. :-) [John] You say that there are conflicts? That's life. [Arlo] Sure. But conflicts over what an author "says" and conflicts over whether an author is "right" about something are different animals. [John] But the WAY he disagrees shows it's not a papal bull on his part, but an open-ended question he himself is interested in seeing pursued. [Arlo] I am sure he is. And I am equally sure he (as all people do) may change his mind about some things (or not). Again, my point is only that for this dialogue to happen, there needs to be clarification at all points along the way. If I say "certain sufficiently complex non-human biological patterns demonstrate social activity", I'd better be able to explain what I mean, no? Cows? Amoebas? Dogs? Trees? And by being clear, you may respond by saying "no no, Arlo you acerdimic buffoon, its based on X not Y", and maybe I'd come to agree, or maybe not, but we at lease we'd be clear on our disagreement. Does this make sense? [John] Thus it seems to me that where the author offers his own questioning and equivocation, we have room to discuss while staying within the bounds of orthodoxy. Thus structure and room to grow both. [Arlo] I don't know of any other author who is accused of fostering "orthodoxy" by ensuring the clarity of their ideas. Do we accuse Peirce of this because he wrote lengthy treatises to precisely define his ideas? [John] But think of it this way, Arlo, if Pirsig stepped in and said "I think Platt is much closer to the MoQ than Arlo" would you continue to argue with him? [Arlo] Sure I would. I make no secret of where I disagree with Pirsig. But this makes it about ego and its not about ego. Its not about DMB is right and Bo is wrong (or vice versa), its about Pirsig saying "this is what I think, this is what I am proposing, agree or disagree as you see fit". I am sure, by the way, if we are talking about non-human sociality that this is precisely what Pirsig would say. Maybe Pirsig would say "Arlo, your ideas about non-human social activity are ones I do not agree with, and are not what I meant when I formulated the MOQ's levels, Platt's insistence that the social level is reserved exclusively for humans accurately captures my ideas". And I'd be fine with that, I could then say "Mr. Pirsig, here is why I think you are wrong, and why a MOQ is strengthened by including them". [John] So put it out there for discussion. What are the three main points you wish would be clarified by Bob the pope? I'll answer in his name if you think that will help. And then you can argue with me. [Arlo] Bob the pope? Jeez, if I asked Peirce (via a medium?) to explain in better detail what he meant by "icon", would I be treating him like Peirce the pope? Would I be asking for a papal bull? Okay, that's enough of my acerdimicly-biased long-windedness for now... :-) 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
