[Mark]
What me? Avoid disagreement? All disagreements are based on interpretations.
[Arlo]
I think you're backing up "interpretations" here to the realm of
"interpreting experience". So, sure, on this level our disagreements
stem from different "interpretations" of experience.
But the present context is not about this level, it is about whether
or not one agrees with or disagrees with something Pirsig has stated.
My ideas are not "an interpretation" of what he said, they are a
refutation. According to Pirsig, for example "Intellect!=SOM". Saying
"Intellect=SOM" is not an "interpretation", it is a disagreement and
a refutation. Pirsig has said his ideas are "anti-theistic", saying
"the MOQ is theistic" is not an "interpretation", but a disagreement
and a refutation.
I feel like I am repeating myself, and hence not sure if I am
explaining myself adequately. Do you see the difference above I am
pointing towarsd?
In any event, the impetus of "interpretation" is to avoid the charge
of disagreement with the author. Hence we had Bo who claimed the SOL
was not a disagreement he had with Pirsig (which is legitimate) but
an "interpretation" where he could claim Pirsig was in agreement with
him, or his ideas were Pirsig's. Obviously, Bo vocally disagreed with
me, but I was not an authority he sought to provide "interpretive
legitimacy". Pirsig was/is.
[Mark]
I have no interest in proving what Pirsig meant, I am interested in
what you mean.
[Arlo]
I am flattered.
[Mark]
Pirsig is Pirsig, this is MOQ, not Pirsig.
[Arlo]
Well I see you avoid both "a" and "the" in that, and that suits me.
Yes, Pirsig is Pirsig, and disagreeing and
extending/revision/contextualizing his words is part and parcel of
the process of intellectual evolution. I see Pirsig as one voice in
an historical dialogue, responding to others, anticipating responses
to his words, but that the dialogue does not end with Pirsig by any means.
So again, when I use the term "The MOQ..." I use it to refer to
"Robert Pirsig" as this was the narrative device he employed, but
I've tried to start using "Pirsig's MOQ" or "Pirsig's ideas" in place
of this, the way we'd use "James' Pragmatism" to distinguish ideas
from "Peirce's Pragmatism".
In fact, more and more I think the narrative "The MOQ..." is a source
of a lot of confusion and, to those who read it literally, leads to
thinking of "The MOQ" as being something out there that Pirsig, you,
me, and everyone else is just "interpreting". The MOQ is not reality,
it itself is an interpretation of reality. It is not a giant elephant
in the room we are all groping trying to figure out what it is, it is
(in the context of being Pirsig's set of ideas) one man's
interpretation of that elephant.
In other words, Quality=Experience, a Metaphysics of Quality is an
interpretation of that experience.
[Mark]
Just to be on the record, I do not subscribe to intellect being SOM.
[Arlo]
I responded to you on this in the Intellectual level thread. FYI.
[Mark]
Since we are gossiping here, I would say that I think that Marsha
thinks that it is you who are making the romantic subservient to the classical.
[Arlo]
She may, and that would certainly explain her hostility. But I'd
challenge her to provide any evidence that I (or DMB) attack
"romantic understanding" in any way, or demean expressive poetry,
dancing or painting, etc.
Pirsig's desire in ZMM was to achieve a synthesis, an integration, of
what he saw as two erroneously dichotomized aspects of being. He
considered this to a "new spiritual rationality", a root expansion
that would make these aspects integrated rather than antagonistic. If
you think anything I've written is antagonistic of "romantic
understanding", please let me know.
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
