Dave and Arlo and any interested,
> dmb says: > I think I see what you're getting at, Arlo, but I'm not so sure I'd cut it > up that way. I think that we can have the MOQ in the strict sense and a > wider conversation about Pirsig's ideas. John: I think Arlo agrees, dave, but I think he just wants to clarify these two different modes with some distinct labeling. Thus his "wider conversation" would not be called "the MoQ", he'd term it "Qualityism". I don't agree that this is the best approach, but I do agree that he has a good point and that the clarification of an ambiguity is usually a good thing. > John said: > I know what Arlo is going to say to this one! He's gonna fall back on > authoritarianism. ...Trust a trained academic to follow certain patterns in > thinking, every time. ...Since Pirsig invented the MoQ, only what he says is > fully valid. > > > dmb says: > When it comes to the MOQ, Pirsig wrote the book. Literally. To reject the > author's authority as authoritarianism is... well, I honestly can't think of > a nice word for it. It's really, really stupid, John. John: I'll take your word on that one, dave. Because when it comes to "really, really stupid", you are one of the greatest authorities in my book. Unfortunately, you don't understand what I was saying. Rejecting the author's authority isn't the issue - reflexively relying upon static authority without thinking is. Using no supporting argumentation except "Pirsig sez" is an invalid philosophical ploy. But alas, I'm sure this makes no sense to you. > John said: > For instance, everybody around here seems to think that the phenomena of > "emotions" are biological. But the only real support for the position comes > from "Pirsig said it, therefore I believe it." > > dmb says: > I was convinced when I heard that James had asserted it long ago and that > it was recently corroborated by the new brain imaging techniques that James > never had. > I think you're confusing two very different things here, John. If we want > to know WHAT Pirsig said or thinks, we can present evidence by simply > quoting the relevant part of his text. But if we want to know if Pirsig is > RIGHT about what he said, quoting his text is useless and it couldn't count > as evidence one way or the other. Isn't that obvious to everyone? John: What else would I be concerned with? It's easy to grasp what Pirsig said - all you have to do is be able to read. But grasping whether he was right means actually understanding and interpreting - strenuous work, I guess, for those who are too busy to actually engage. 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
