Arlo, Let's try this.
No-one not even Mary (or Ron or Marsha or John, or whoever) is arguing for total subjectivism. The right to believe (and act on) any belief, without considerations of quality - whether one belief and course of action is better than another. The argument here is getting tangled up with arguments from authority who said what and if it was or wasn't what Pirsig said - again tangled-up in whether it appears as support for Bo's ignorance - and targetting arguments against people on that basis. I'd like to put that aside - and come separately to the motivation of arguments later. I very much doubt Ron or anyone else's interpretation suggested MoQ "promotes" rape and torture. A straw man if ever I heard one (see motivation above.) Twisted Talk Radio rhetoric even ;-) Deep breath - I don't need this argument - I would not however be surprised if Ron (like we all could) were able to make a case for MoQ "supporting" torture (including rape). But the situation supporting it would already be the exceptionally dire result of many poor quality prior decisions and actions I'm sure. I think the people deluding themselves are those denying that. But the argument would not be one of subjective relativism - one of dealing with a (real or hypothetical) living situation. The legitimacy would be in the experience (and motivation dare I say) of the situation. Ian On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 9:54 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > I changed the thread name, probably should've done that a few posts back. > > [Arlo previously] > But you see the problem, if its all "subjectivism", than Pirsig can have meant > whatever anyone wants to believe he meant. If you want to believe he "meant" > the SOL, then that's what he "meant". If Ron wants to believe he "meant" rape > and torture, then that's what he "meant". > > [Mary] > I absolutely see the problem, Arlo, and think it's probably a more difficult > problem to parse out than even Pirsig's MoQ - if you can believe that. > > Here are my cards, on the table, right away for you. The issue is fairness > and respect for the other person combined with respect for my own ideas and > beliefs. > > [Arlo] > As far as I've seen it, the issue has never been about the substance of your > ideas, but ascribing them to an author who has denied such intent. I certainly > do respect your ideas, and your right to find a "meaning" in this world that > is > relevant and valuable to you. > > So the question remains, if all "interpretations" are not equally valid, how > do > we parse out the invalid (the MOQ supports rape and torture) from the valid? > > I'll put my cards on the table and say the problem in this view is that > "interpretation" occurs in a vacuum, that we encounter meaningless "objects" > and we whatever meaning we "subjectively" imbue them with are all equally > valid. > > [Mary] > You do not have the right to tell me what my beliefs are. You can tell me > what > you THINK they are, but you will most likely be wrong since you are not in my > head. Does that make sense? > > [Arlo] > Of course not, if you want to believe the sun is made of cotton candy, no one > can tell you that you do not have the right to believe this. You can believe > Pirsig was advocating genocide and ultimately you have the right to that > belief. > > Ron may have every right to believe Pirsig's ideas promote rape and torture, > but the questions moves away from this right when he begins participating in a > social dialogue. I think we do, and I admit its an ongoing negotiated process, > have the obligation to separate out what Pirsig said, and what our ideas about > what he said may be. > > [Mary[ > Where you and I will differ is that I have read Mr. Pirsig's work numerous > times, have thought about the import of his words, and have formed conclusions > based on his words. My conclusions obviously differ a lot from yours. What > are we to do about that? > > [Arlo] > Well Mary we should talk about it. For example, I read Pirsig and I am not > pleased with a MOQ that limits the social and intellectual patterns to humans. > I think a different approach is better. I would love to hear (on or off list) > what you think. > > But again, the problem returns to a movement away from expressing disagreement > over ideas to arguing interpretative legitimacy. I don't get that. Why are > your > "conclusions" necessitiated on gaining Pirsig's legitimacy? > > [Mary] > Should I acquiesce without a fight when I honestly can read some very > specific things into his writings that you may not see? > > [Arlo] > You say it yourself here, you are reading things into his writings. You are > adding things you find valuable and disagreeing with his conclusions (some of > them). I don't know why you find this so problematic. > > [Mary] > Do you see that you are doing exactly the same thing I am? You are carrying > around a mantle of legitimate authority in your own mind about Pirsig's words. > You see your view as absolutely right, and to the extent that I disagree with > you, I am absolutely wrong. > > [Arlo] > I cede in the dialogue to Pirsig's clarifications of his ideas. I really want > to be precise about what he said and what he didn't say because I believe that > formulating agreement and disagreement, into adding new ideas and arguing > against what we see as mistakes, is the way ideas grow. > > What I see in some, is that no matter how loudly Pirsig protests an > "interpretation", there is no withdrawl, indeed there is even deeper > entrenchment (Pirsig is a weak interpreter of Pirsig). > > Believe me, Mary, if there is one thing I would want is Pirsig's involvement. > I > do not understand the "Pirsig needs to shut up so we can think" mentality, its > so alien to any way real ideas are constructed and negotiated. The idea that > if > he speaks we will all bleat like sheep at his words is absurd. We are all > adults, we can agree and disagree. But before we can get there we need > clarity, > and this is (in many cases) the problem before us, a lack of clarity has been > filled with endless bickering over "interpretation" in a bid for legitimacy. > > Those who want Pirsig to remain silent, I think, see "The MOQ" as something > floating around out there and we are all struggling to interpret it. They see > ZMM/LILA as Pirsig's "interpretation of the MOQ" and worry that any further > vocality on his part would silence other, equally valid, "interpretations". > > I can't think of a single other author who has written a metaphysics in just > two books and then is asked to "shut up" so others can "extend" his ideas. > > In any event, we do have some clarity, Pirsig has been involved in some > dialogue and from these I think there are certain things that can, and should, > really be laid to rest (as far as they are things ascribed to HIM). > > [Mary] > What if we both agreed to view the other party with the same respect we afford > to ourselves? > > [Arlo] > I know I am repeating myself here, but again I have no issues whatsoever with > any discussion about why X is better than Y. If you and I want to debate the > merits of a MOQ where intellect=X versus a MOQ where intellect=Y, I would > think > such a conversation is valuable. > > But the issue at hand is that it was NOT about this, it was about THAT PIRSIG > SAID intellect=X and NOT intellect=Y. I see nothing valuable here, given > Pirsig's denials, and this is entirely a bid for legitimacy. Why should I give > this respect? Why should I give respect to someone's claim that Pirsig "meant > to support rape and torture"? > > The latter is the trouble with "all is interpretation" thinking, its all we > are > stuck with, an endless squabble over whether Pirsig "meant to say" this or > that. We spin our wheels, we go no where. > > Since this is getting long, I'm going to continue my reply in another post. > > 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 > 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
