Arlo said to Mark:
DMB cannot stop you, Mark, from offering something you think is better than
what Pirsig offered. If Bo's ideas are truly superior to Pirsig's, then they
will "win out". If you think a "theistic MOQ" is superior to Pirsig's
"anti-theistic MOQ", and people agree, then that is the path evolution will
take. The only "dead end", as I see, is the continued need to validate
"interpretation" through the lens of legitimizing authority. As long as
"contrarians" think the best path is to "prove" Pirsig "really meant" to agree
with them, even knowing that when he said otherwise he is just a
"weak-interpreter of his own ideas", then I see the narrative forever stalled.
dmb says:
Thanks again, Arlo.
Am I being too harsh or are you being too nice. I mean, Mark isn't the only
poster who seems to be confused about the difference between social level
authority and intellectual authority. Nobody has any power over anybody else
here. That's logistically impossible and so the whole complaint strikes me as
quite ridiculous. It's not even worthy of a response. Intellectual authorities
have nothing but the power of persuasion and it only works on reasonable,
open-minded people who are willing to listen. They only have authority to the
extent that their efforts can be trusted by people who actually understand what
they're saying. Experts are only going to be valuable to those who have a basic
respect for things like relevant evidence, sound reasoning, clarity of
expression and all the other things that would add to intellectual quality. And
that's exactly what it takes for the dialogue to move forward. These are not
rules or laws so much as they're standards of taste and excellence
. And it would be ideal if these standards pervaded the whole atmosphere
wherever and whenever this sort of game is being played.
And yet we have a whole crew that seem to actively disrespect and despise any
kind of intellectual authority or expertise. Did you count the number of times
that Steven Hawking was dumped on? I think anti-intellectualism is a very
common attitude generally, but in a philosophy discussion group? In this
context, it strikes me as bizarre. And when you don't buy what they're selling,
it has to be a matter of authoritarian oppression. The MAN is keepin' 'em down,
they think. It can't about about their quality of their own thought and speech
because it's always that other guy's fault.
Oh, the drama.
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
