Continued from previous post... [Arlo previously] Power to the people, Mary, why should something be less legitimate for you because someone else didn't say it, that it was something you generated on your own.
[Mary] I gave this a lot of thought. You ask a legitimate question. Perhaps it's just a matter of personal style? I know that at my office, where I am trying to lead an effort to 'change the culture' of my company, I never say that anything at all is my OWN idea. That's because it isn't. I imagine I've lived the entirety of my life without ever having a truly original idea. [Arlo] Well, I can't really say much here, Mary, except you are cutting yourself short. I hope you find a way to see that you've had many original ideas, and that their legitimacy (or value) is not based on them coming from someone else. I think this is my biggest frustration with interpretative legitimacy, its as if if the idea did not come Pirsig it has no value. I am accused of being an acolyte, or whatever, and yet those who call me this seem to think that their ideas only matter if they can "prove" they came from Pirsig. Who's the acolyte? Who is the sycophant? The value of ideas comes from their substance, not from the celebrity of the author. I don't need Pirsig's voice to legitimize my ideas about the inclusion of certain non-human species into the social level. Do YOU think that if Pirsig would have said this the idea would have more value than my saying it? [Mary] It's a personal thing. I 'value' humility over almost everything else. A personal weakness, I guess, perhaps because it is such a challenge for me sometimes. :) [Arlo] Nothing wrong with humility, and nothing wrong with some pride sometimes as well. Richard Lederer wrote that we need a word to contrast "selfish", something like "self-ful". It is not good to be ego driven, but it is not good to find no value in one's abilities either. [Mary] Oh, Arlo, this one I can tackle. None of us are perfect at this, but I do think we can all pretty easily smell a rat. Many are slaves to their egos. [Arlo] Well this leaves us with the possibility that someone "interpreting" Pirsig to support rape and torture may have a valid interpretation so long as they have not reached this interpretation through ego-drive. It seems to suggest that the conclusions are never wrong, unless the path to them are, so the same conclusions can be valid for one person and invalid for another. [Mary] So, to say that Pirsig was my authority or inspiration is my honest assessment. I did not think up the idea that all is DQ/SQ and not SOM, nor did I think up the elegant 4 static levels with their astoundingly airtight interplay. I am not that smart. It must have been Pirsig, and I desire to be sure he gets credit for all the good things his ideas have brought into my life. [Arlo] Of course we want to give credit where credit is due, but are you implying here you have absolutely no disagreement with Pirsig? That your understanding of a MOQ is exactly 'poured' into your head from Pirsig's words? [Mary] If I am so deluded, then it is a comfortable one, for I have found peace in the MOQ I never found elsewhere. If you and others wish to destroy that I cannot stop you. [Arlo] I don't understand this at all, Mary. What am I trying to destroy? If anything I am trying to show you that disagreeing with Pirsig and formulating ideas you think are better is GREAT. THAT is how "ideas" evolve, not by trying to attribute every possible "idea" to "The Great Author", but through legitimate and valid agreement and disagreement. I am telling you that you are not so dumb, and you see this as an attack to destroy something? Are your ideas really so dependent on the notion that "Pirsig said them"? I mean, am I deluded because I think non-human patterns (certain ones) should be seen as social or even intellectual? Does it "destroy" my peace in my ideas for someone here to say "Pirsig didn't say that"? Are others attempting to destroy something in me by saying this is my own idea and not Pirsig's? [Mary] I would not want to destroy an interpretation that works for you. [Arlo] The only way something can be "destroyed" is if someone can demonstrate that another idea is "better". It does not destroy an idea to say so-and-so did or did not say something. Do you think it would be an attempt to destroy my understanding of a MOQ by telling me my ideas about the S/I levels are NOT Pirsig's? I don't. Why would that destroy my ideas? What WOULD destroy my ideas is for someone to demonstrate why excluding all non-human patterns from the S/I levels is better than allowing some in. And in this case, my idea should be destroyed. [Mary] We are all seekers and we should all be a little kinder to each other because we are much more alike than we are different. [Arlo] Pipe dreams should be left under the bed... ;-) 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
