Ho Arlo,

I'm way behind these days.  Monday I should pass my final test and be a
fully licensed trucker, but I just had to say that I thought this was
awfully good.  A quality thought indeed, deserving of being framed and hung
above the mantle...

>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
John:

I agree.  I also understand that "disagreements with the author" must be
rooted in a solid foundation of AGREEMENT with the author, because if you
don't basically agree with him, you wouldn't find any reason to argue with
him.  Where this line is drawn, is where the fights often occur, in my
experienced perspective.

But the following affords an excellent example.


>
> [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.
>
>

John:

To me, this is a good example because while Pirsig himself attributes social
patterns to just humanity, he does so in a fashion that isn't carefully
constructed out of airtight logic, but in an off-hand fashion where he
indicates that he can't see where to draw the line, if he doesn't do so in
humanity.  For at its basic level, all reality is social.  Admitting that
one doesn't see "where to draw the line" is not an airtight argument.  I
view it as an invitation from teacher to student, to enter into discussion.
It's a bad teacher who has all the answers.

Arlo the good teacher:



> The value of ideas is what ultimately matters, and without disagreement
> there really is no differing values to compete, is there?



Thanks Arlo (and Mary)  Nice thoughts, well placed.  Sorry it took so long
for me to find them!

John
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

Reply via email to