[Mary]
That would be fun for me, but the bigger question you pose is deeper
as it relates to how we react to each other here in the MD.
[Arlo]
Its interesting to note that if you really look at the most "heated"
exchanges in the MD, they nearly always are not about substantive
issues but about this idea of "interpretative legitimacy". Exchanges
over substance tend to be much more civil, and I think this is
because there is at the least general acceptance of a foundation, and
it is THAT foundation from which I think that clarity bears evolution.
[Mary]
The fun is in the disagreement, is it not?
[Arlo]
Most definitely, and moreso it is out of disagreement that our ideas
evolve, or strengthen. We seek disagreement not entirely because we
are curmudgeons who enjoy verbal jousts, but because we have learned
that in the arena of disagreement is where ideas truly evolve. If
everyone agreed with everyone else, this forum would not last, or
it'd become a social fan club, or something like that. Disagreement,
in other words, is not only healthy it is necessary!
And, at the risk of being repetitive, it is precisely why I said that
if Pirsig's ideas are to genuinely evolve, it will NOT be in the
morass of posturing for interpretative legitimacy, but through
disagreements with the author that foster the develop of better
ideas, or better ways to think about a metaphysics of Quality.
[Mary]
As I said to Dan, I don't personally need to legitimize my ideas by
insisting they are exactly or entirely from the celebrity, Pirsig. I
do, however, feel
the real need to give him credit for them. I did not arrive at my
conclusions without Pirsig's influence.
[Arlo]
Of course not. It'd be hard for me to say that "the social and
intellectual levels are better viewed as containing certain non-human
patterns" without acknowledging Pirsig's insights into formulating
the levels in the first place, and my personal ideas here are, I
think, a relatively small part of Pirsig's overall metaphysics. I am
not coming up with something entirely new, I am merely disagreeing
with this particular part of his ideas.
And moreso than this, my ideas about my disagreement are also largely
influenced by Tomasello and Hofstadter (among others). We arrive at
conclusions, as you say, through the great number of ideas we've
encountered and constructed over our lives.
[Mary]
It would be dishonest of me to insist that I thought up Intellectual
Level = SOM all by myself.
[Arlo]
Well, "all by myself" makes my inner constructivist wince. No, no one
thinks in a vacuum. We all think within the rich social tapestry and
historical dialogue we are part of. So while you may not want to
think you came up with this idea all by yourself, you should
certainly see that it was not entirely Pirsig either.
[Mary]
The fight you and they seem to want to have with me is always
predicated on the rejection of my idea first off.
[Arlo]
I don't think this is the case at all. What is "rejected" is the bid
for interpretative legitimacy, in this case that this particular idea
was "what Pirsig really meant to say". I've yet to see an argument
that would make me think constraining the intellectual level in this
way has any value. But if that idea holds value for you, why would I
care to destroy it? But what I do care about, and what we should care
about, is that Pirsig's ideas differ from yours in this regard, and
saying that he really meant to say what you want him to have said is
unacceptable.
Again, consider that if I started constant posts about how Pirsig
"really meant" to include non-human patterns in the S/I levels; that
Pirsig's comments that he thinks otherwise only evidence that Pirsig
is too stupid to know what he meant, that he cannot be counted on to
be an expert on his own ideas.
[Mary]
Just as you say the Social Level is not about humanity only, I
imagine you came by that idea from your reading of Pirsig. My
position is exactly the same.
[Arlo]
I came by this idea through disagreeing with Pirsig, and through my
own personal historical repertoire of experience (books, movies,
conversations, etc.). Obviously its built upon (or within) agreement
with Pirsig's overall foundation, but attributing the idea to him is wrong.
[Mary]
What I find problematic has to do with the discrepancies I see
between what Pirsig said in ZMM and Lila and what he said much later
on to Mr. Turner and others. In my opinion, he seems to be renieging
on his primary insights in a number of ways.
[Arlo]
I think in cases where he has attempted to clarify his ideas we
should accept this for exactly what it is, a man trying to explain
what he meant. When you start dismissing this, you are no longer
having a genuine dialogue, you are attempting to attribute ulterior
motives to explain why your interpretative legitimacy should
overwrite what the author says.
And so what if what you see as discrepancies are the result of a
disagreement you have over his conclusions. You thought he meant one
thing, he disagreed, and so this becomes the ground of disagreement
over which idea, yours or his, has more value.
To be honest, I admit to a little disappointment of his clarification
about reserving the S/I levels for humans only. To the best of my
recollection, that stance isn't in LILA (or ZMM), and so reading it
angered me a bit. But this is healthy, and I accept that ultimately
my ideas are in disagreement with his.
[Mary]
Any speculation on my part is unfair to Mr. Pirsig no matter how
unfair to me I might think his later statements to be. Does that
make sense? What would you think if you were me?
[Arlo]
I think we have a fairly large disagreement on the value of
disagreement. Personally, I can't see how disagreeing with Pirsig
would be matter to the value with which you hold your ideas. I was
disappointed too, as I just mentioned, but oh well, life goes on,
we'll never find anyone that we agree with entirely.
[Mary]
I do not know who you are talking about here. I presume it must be
me since you and I are talking, but this is not what I think at all.
[Arlo]
It was not directed at you, but an aside about the exchanges I've had
with others on the list who believe that any added dialogue with
Pirsig would somehow hinder or harm the evolution of his ideas. Even
Pirsig expressed such an idea with his "papul bull" comment, and I
think such a cop out is really nothing but "bull".
[Mary]
I even went so far as to transcribe his "MoQ and Art" monologue for
the pleasure of the entire MD a few months ago.
[Arlo]
I think I missed this, could you send me copy offlist?
[Mary]
I would love nothing so much as to check my email some day and find
[email protected] posting replies! What an orgasmic dream
that would be for all of us! Could somebody talk to him about it?
[Arlo]
I'm sure he's aware, but whether its worrying about "papal bulls" or
just enjoying his retirement, I don't think he's going to be too
involved. I am sure he does speak (however frequently I do not know)
to some on this list, and I think his continuing to do so is the best
we can hope for. He has alluded (if I recall) to a large number of
unpublished notes and things that will probably become available
after his death, so I imagine that giving nothing else, we may have
these one day to add some insight into his ideas.
[Mary]
His books opened a Pandora's box for each of us. He could not
possibly be expected to have anticipated every possible reaction to
his work. Mine is one that he apparently disagrees with. So be it.
[Arlo]
Well, yeah, this is precisely what I was saying above. So what if he
disagrees with something. I've yet to meet a person with whom I have
no disagreement at all. The value of ideas is what ultimately
matters, and without disagreement there really is no differing values
to compete, is there?
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
