dave, I agree completely. There is no excuse for irrelevance.
dmb says: > > Our topic is Pirsig's MOQ and metaphysics covers everything so there are no > topical boundaries for MOQ-discuss? Is that your argument? I think this > reasoning is specious. There's probably a latin name for that particular > fallacy, but I don't know what it is. It would probably be something like "defining the finite as infinite", > except in latin the phrase would be sing-songy and humorous. But it is true > that the MOQ is very broad and since it is presented in narrative form, with > lots of specific comments about sex, politics, religion, history and > cultural differences, anyone should be able to find something that's within > the boundaries, relevant to the topic, AND interesting to them personally. > The philosophical picture that Pirsig paints could be brought to bear on > just about anything, so there really is no excuse for being irrelevant. > > Right. And you've certainly got that one mapped out, don't you dave. Pragmatically speaking, what's relevant to the MoQ is that which supports and promotes the academic careers of it's adherents, eh? Yeah. I know all about that one. Sorry. I don't quite agree. There are issues with "the academy" that I don't think will go away quickly and I think the MoQ oughta focus on what's good, not merely what's expediently popular or likely to win academic friends. Neither do I think we need to go out of our way to make enemies. Either horn on that bull will gore you to distraction. But in order to stay focused on what is good, the MoQ needs to be rooted, always, in real life. And thus, yup, metaphysically speaking, I'd say that makes it just about as all-inclusive of topic as anything I can imagine. I'll have to go with Krimel on that one. > Krimel replied to Arlo: > ...I think your analogy of AA and PTA meetings is flawed. What you say > might apply well to face to face meetings of people who are trapped in > direct contact with each other and for whom time is an immediate concern. > While virtual communities do mimic real life communities I think some of the > "real" life time constraints don't apply here. Deleting and ignore posts is > not time consuming and is hardly the problem it is in real world meetings. > > John: Yes and no, Krimel. It's true in a mechanistic way, but it is possible to drown out quality with crap. One reason I say television sucks, is for that very mechanism. Any small smidgeon of quality intellectual stimulus could be better found in other means, and it's not worth the hurricane of shit one must wade through to get them. gimme email and filters over that, any day. It's an interesting enough question to realize that a lot is riding on our horse. Why not change the name to the MoH? Be more accurate, right? The ole elephant in the room. One I've dealt with in my mind, and I guess you have to deal with in yours. whatever floats the boat, as is said. Not to be cryptic or anything. Nah. Or make too many carriage returns. dmb says: > > I think the point is that organizations like AA and the PTA have a > particular purpose and the boundaries are drawn to serve that purpose. This > is true of our little "discourse community" too, of course. Maybe some kind > of philosophical organization would make for a better analogy. The whole > profession is one big discourse community and each of the scholarly journals > is basically a more specific sub-conversation, a community within a > community. This forum is very analogous to a particular journal, except it's > much more casual and we don't have to worry about professional standards and > footnotes and all that. Its purpose is not so broad as the discussion of > philosophy in general, although it's hard to think of a philosophy that > couldn't illuminate the MOQ in some way, by contrast if nothing else. But > this is a philosophical community, not a fan club or a social club. People > can't stop being people and there's nothing wrong with being friendly. As > Pirsig sees it (and James), you > r philosophical views are always going to largely determined by your > perspective. In that sense, our personal biographies can never be separated > out of our philosophical views. But the purpose of this community is > primarily intellectual because, obviously, a particular metaphysics defines > the area of discourse. > > John: Well, mostly. That's been my working premise, anyway. I got questions tho about "primarily intellectual" for instance. I'd like to seriously set "intellectual" aside for a moment, and call it "4th level consciousness". "Intellectual" leads to conundrums for Pirsigians, and I think Bo's point revolved around trying to reconcile this "genetic defect in the heart of the MoQ' SOM is intellectual. If you're going to call the 4th level SOM, then you're a Bo'ist. But by my re-label, which includes the romantic and mythic and irrational of human experience, the art that is missing from our intellectual science, the romantic side, the artistic side - ideally working in combination with rationality. Art that makes sense, for chrissake. For a change. That's what I see as the goal - Thus freeing the MoQ from the merely intellectual. Which plays to the larger question of my involvement and expression on this forum, which you have questioned repeatedly.... but I think I'll address later. > On this analogy, we get a new issue of the journal everyday. (Let's call it > "The Quality Quarterly") And every time we open a new issue we find that > only some of the articles are philosophical and only some of them are about > the MOQ. Some days it's hard to find anything on the topic. If you tore out > every off-topic page, there'd be nothing left. If it were a publication, > you'd scratch your head and wonder how long it's been since those writers > read their own mission statement. You'd think those authors had forgotten > the purpose of the publication. > > John: See, I think the problem is, you've got a dmb-map in your head, and sometimes it doesn't match the map in someone else's head. A common experience, in human affairs. But here on this forum, you don't go straight to "hmmm... I wonder what they mean". You go straight to "they disagree with my wording and I"m the expert. Bob sez." Even when you don't put it like that, it flits through your frontal lobes and gets "on paper" somehow. what you seem to keep forgetting, is that the MoQ isn't founded upon mere social authority. In fact, it's pretty much opposed to it in all forms. Pretty ironic, eh? Because bob sez so, that's why. > I'm gonna start a new publication: "Me Magazine". It'll be by me, for me > and about me. Wanna guess who will grace the cover? Hope it goes better than > my last project. I tried to start a chapter of Narcissists Anonymous but it > failed miserably. Who could have known they'd hate anonymity so much? I had > a huge mailing list but nobody showed up. Hey, I wonder if those narcissists > would be interested in a magazine about me. Where did I put that list? I'd read it. I'd be fascinated. I'd love to understand more about you because you seem so guarded and defensive all the time, I never really get a peek at who you are. I think it's a good idea, dave. You get that magazine published. Really. And good for you, btw. It takes a lot of courage to own up to one's true feelings the way you have here. It takes guts and insight to admit to your narcissism and I admire you for it. Exactly to the extent that you meant it. Yours to the end, white trash John 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
