Arlo said:
Right, we have two opposing "descriptions of Quality". We have Pirsig's
description, and we have the other person's description. I'm not sure what is
problematic here, it is perfectly coherent to say "Pirsig's MOQ and Arlo's MOQ
vary on Point A".
dmb says:
Another good way to think about the difference is to ask two separate
questions. 1) What does Pirsig mean? and 2) Is Pirsig right? The first question
is about the best way to read Pirsig's books and the second question can't
really be asked until the first one has been answered pretty well. This is just
a matter of logical necessity because one cannot test, dispute, affirm or
criticize an idea unless and until you know what that idea is. The problem is
not that somebody might have a way to improve or refine Pirsig's work. As a
matter of principle, we not only don't want to shut that down, it's a hopeful
ideal to be aimed for.
The problem is with the particular people around here who think they have a
better idea than Pirsig, who think they are masters of the second question when
in fact they haven't even come close to settling the first question. What kind
of person can believe they are on a par with Pirsig even though they have not
done the work, have never written or published a book, and/or have no
background in philosophy? Can you imagine such an attitude with respect to any
other discipline? It's like vandalizing a Picasso with finger paint and then
calling yourself an artistic genius. It's crazy. Its that what we mean when we
say a person suffers from grandiose delusions. Isn't that attitude outrageously
arrogant, at best, and more likely the symptom of mental illness? Normal people
just don't talk like that.
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
