Arlo: [John] > How this [the MOQ] has been constructed, and what it has been constructed > into, > is something that "speaks" in a sense. It was designed to do so, after > all, > and it'd be a pure shame if it spoke to no one. > > [Arlo] > All ideas are constructed similarly.
John: No, no, no, Arlo. All ideas are NOT constructed the same nor do all ideas contain the intention of "speaking" or communicating to another. Some ideas are just to meant to reflect to oneself, but the idea of speaking is specifically a communication - a conversation between individuals. Oft a one-sided conversation, for while it is evident to me that many speak, it seems that few listen. Arlo: > All are voices spoken within a historical > dialogue. This "designed to" is nonsense, ALL ideas evolve, they always > have > and they always will. > > John: Arlo, Arlo, Arlo. If you're going to spout stupidity, I'm going to have to insult you. Not all ideas evolve, if by "evolve" you mean "grow, change and continue". Some ideas just flat die out. They are seen as ridiculous and they pass away. This is the natural evolution of ideas, don't you believe in the natural evolution of ideas? Further, a "voice" is not quite an idea. A voice expresses ideas, but ideas aren't all voiced. Arlo: > So I ask you, can you tell me something "the MOQ" has said, that neither > you, > nor me, nor Pirsig, nor Dan nor anyone else has said? > > John: I believe I could, but you have to understand what I mean by "the MOQ". For I'm not content to merely label the words in two books as "the MOQ". What I see as the MoQ, is a process begun by two books, and continued through MD, the annotations and commentaries subsequent to the two books and our very ongoing dialogue today. True, it seems like it's "John" saying this stuff. John is the carrier of my ideas, but in many ways my ideas have growth and evolution outside of any self-interest, biological or social, on my own part. And it's considering strictly this intellectual realm which I believe speaks. In other words, the MoQ "says" what Arlo, Pirsig, Dan and anyone else agree upon as a whole, rather than what individuals say about it. Reality is a social construct, to me, after all. Arlo: > I get that its a nice rhetorical convention, but those voices in your head, > John, are not "the MOQ", they are you, Dan, Pirsig, Kant, Hegel, and every > other voice you've interacted with. > > John: I disagree fundamentally, Arlo. And I hope you understand how I differentiate. Pehaps Ian's point about having beers in a bar with Dan, Pirsig, Kant and Hegel is so different from thinking and writing about a metaphysical system that absorbs intellectual ideas and grows and changes through dialogue would explain what I mean by distinctifyin' between people and people's ideas. > [John] > Many philosophers have constructed systems which then take on independent > life > of their own. > > [Arlo] > No. They evolve as new voices are added, as voices disagree, agree, > contextualize, critique, revision and reconstruct the ideas. > > John: And how is something that evolves not something that takes on its own life? I agree with your list, of course, but when I say "takes on independent life" that litany is what I meant. I didn't mean dr. frankenstein lets some magic lightning through the roof. Arlo: > I've said this to Dan in my very first reply weeks ago. On this level "the > MOQ" > is akin to something like "pragmatism" or "relativity", it is a large field > with many competing and contrasting ideas. You could say something like > "Qualityism" instead. > > John: What would be the problem with doing so? With looking at it that way? I ask, because that's kind of the way I take it. Arlo: > But if "the MOQ" can never run contrary to Pirsig's ideas, then it will > never > "evolve", because you are defining "the MOQ" as simply the ideas expressed > by > Pirsig. If you change them, they are no longer Pirsig's ideas. > John: Well as I said, I do define the MoQ as more than Pirsig's Ideas. I define it as a self-contained system launched by Pirsig, and kept afloat by hundreds. I define it as the congruence between Pirsig's ideas and ours. If it was just Pirsig, all by himself with his ideas, then there really would be nothing. Certainly no MoQ as we understand it today. Just some guy locked up in a room somewhere, a bunch of stuff in his head he couldn't get out. That's not a Metaphysics of Quality. It's a sad madness. Arlo: > This is what I meant when I said that different people here are using the > term > "the MOQ" to refer to different thing. John: I certainly agree with you on that one! Arlo: One group uses it in a global sense, > like "pragmatism", to refer to a growing body of ideas (which will > naturally > include disagreement), another group uses it to refer to specifically "just > what Pirsig said". > John: Ok. I see what you're saying there. Include me in the "global sense like 'pragmatism" bunch. the second group sounds like some sort of cult formation. > > [John] > Using a different arrangement of letters to represent the exact same > concept > isn't very helpful. > > [Arlo] > It is NOT the same concept. Representations are not interpretations. > Restatements are not interpretations. > > John: Can be. Depends on how you interpret (restate). I'm quite serious, mr. semiotics. You aren't looking deeply enough into the underlying concept behind interpretation. > > > [John] > I know what Arlo is going to say to this one! He's gonna fall back on > authoritarianism. > > [Arlo] > Of course Pirsig is an authority on Pirsig. And you are an authority on > you. > That's the authority, if any, I am pointing to you. If you claim you can be > as > much an authority on Pirsig, or more so, than Pirsig, then you're just > kidding > yourself. When I want to know what Pirsig says, I ask Pirsig. > > John: Well, see above. Someday, if the MoQ gets to be big and successful, there may come along somebody more conversant in the MoQ than Pirsig. Heck, I'm sure there have been thousands of Buddhists who are more of an authority on Buddhism than Guatama. For one thing, being dead he has no knowledge of the subsequent dialogue engendered by his work and what has become a religion was at one time just the thoughts of a single man. > [Arlo] > Like you and your idiotic "those darned academics" slaps? > > John: I guess I use 'em mainly to get a rise out of you. But at the same time, there is a certain teacherly propensity sometimes that seems very one-sided in dialogue. Like there is no give and take with a teacher who is in this mode. Their attitude is all handing down the truth from on high. Like they have all the definitions and meanings of all the words we use in their hip pocket, and they won't consider anyone else's viewpoint except to point out they are wrong. I like you Arlo, and I get the feeling you're a great guy. But this teacherly thing bugs me. Heck! I love my wife too, but before I left she'd been substitute teaching grades 1-4 for a few weeks and after doing that all day, I noticed that she was coming home and treating me like an 8 year old! In a way it was kinda nice. Made it easier to hit the road. Starting to miss her tho. > [John] > Since Pirsig invented the MoQ, only what he says is fully valid. > > [Arlo] > What he says is valid as it relates to his ideas, sure. Are you going to > start > telling me what my ideas are too, John? > John: Just did! See how I am? But really Arlo, don't you think we learn more about ourselves from others than we do in front of our mirrors? Arlo: > But if you took half a second to read what I write, rather than respond > with > kneejerk attempts to be Platt, you'd understand that this is simply inane. > > John: Well, obviously I read what you write. Obviously, so did Platt. What I think you must mean is that I don't respond to the parts you want me to. Welcome to my world. That's just the way this thing goes, in my experience. > [John] > What is valid to me, is what Pirsig said and I agree with. > > [Arlo] > So something is invalid to you if Pirsig disagrees with something that you > agree with? > > John: Good question. Not necessarily invalid, but its validity is questionable. A lot of this stuff we discuss seems to be in this category - it's being questioned and worked upon. That's thee process, yessiree. Arlo: > What I value are voices that make me think, and that includes Pirsig's but > also > many others. I don't cry that I am not more of an authority on Pirsig than > Pirsig, that I can't make claims about "what he meant" over his own > protestations. > > John: Well I agree with you that protestations of what Pirsig really meant are kinda silly. He was a very clear writer and I find his whole work to run with a consistency and eloquence with which I agree completely. But I also find many ideas in Pirsig's writings that aren't fully fleshed. Like his statement in the Baggini interview about the social level being confined to humans. Pirsig states his faith in this idea ambigiously, like there might be room for discussion. He says, he just doesn't see where to draw the line, if you don't draw the line at humans. Thus, "the MoQ says" that the social level is confined to humans and that emotions are biological. I argue with the MoQ here. To me it's a very clear-cut situation. Arlo: > There are Pirsig's ideas. Call them collectively "the MOQ", if you will. > Some > of them I agree with. A few I do not. On a larger level, I think I am > staying > within a general "Qualityism" tradition, even if I disagree with Pirsig > about a > point or two. > > John: I agree, and basically see myself in the same boat. > [John] > For instance, everybody around here seems to think that the phenomena of > "emotions" are biological. > > [Arlo] > I do not agree with this. > > [John] > But the only real support for the position comes from "Pirsig said it, > therefore I believe it." > > [Arlo] > So if Pirsig has said that, to him, emotions are biological patterns, then > that > is what they are... to him. > > So, if "the MOQ" is what Pirsig said without deviation, then yes, according > to > the MOQ emotions are biological. > > John: One further point. "The MoQ says" not just because Pirsig says, but because the vast majority of adherents to this forum agree with Pirsig. So I'd say that's a bigger component. If you and I were able to argue the strength and logic of our point that everybody was persuaded, then I think the moq would say something different than Pirsig. Except it might be that he'd be persuaded too, and then all would be harmony and bliss. (what's so funny 'bout...) Arlo: If "the MOQ" is the larger field of Qualityism, then you could propose the > idea > that "a metaphysics of Quality that considers emotions to be social > patterns is > better than one that considers emotions to be biological". > > John: I agree. And I'm willing to consider, for your sake, the use of the term "Qualityism" as valid and significant term. Arlo: But you can't change what Pirsig said. John: I can't, but he can! Any man can always change his mind. At least before he's dead. Arlo: > It simply is where you define what "the > MOQ" refers to. Pirsig ideas specifically, or a field of ideas springing > from > Pirsig's general foundation. > > Well I think we've ironed that little issue out. yay! Student 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
