A good assessment Arlo.
Perhaps it's about time that the members of this list take back the
initiative to express what it is that Pirsig is saying.
It does need a concerted effort though - DMB is doing a good job
countering the arguments of certain members but cannot do it on his own.
I have said that this list should be expressly about Pirsig's MoQ and
not a mish-mash of poorly thought out 'in my opinion' nonsense.
Pirsig is the best place to go for evidence of how the MoQ works and
quotes supporting a position.
If others cannot support their position properly or dismiss Pirsig as of
no consequence then they have no place on this list.
Take back the list now or risk losing it to wooly-headed garbage.
It's your choice.
Horse
On 26/11/2012 16:10, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR wrote:
[DMB]
The first one is that Western intellectuals cannot escape subject-object
metaphysics and the second is that the MOQ is something other than Pirsig's
philosophy as presented in his books.
[Arlo]
Right. I've been saying for quite sometime that Pirsig's rhetorical use of "the MOQ says" as a placeholder for "I
say" continues to be a source of great confusion for some here. I think it'd be a nice experiment if Horse set up a filter
that would replace the string "the MOQ" in all posts with "Pirsig". This "I am here to discuss the MOQ
and I don't care what Pirsig said" is bizarre rhetoric that really only evidences very muddled thinking. There is, of
course, nothing wrong with proposing counter ideas, or disagreeing or expanding, and if we have an eye towards a larger, emergent
field of related theories, there should always be an emphasis of clarity and precision on what was said, what is being agreed
with, what is being disagreed with, and why one's ideas provide a better overall metaphysics than the ones it is diverging from.
Marsha is in a difficult spot, because she still adheres to Bo's MOQ where the entire
intellectual level IS subject-object metaphysics. She can only allude to this, of course,
but this reconstruction of Pirsig informs all her ideas here, it leaves her really with
little to do BUT attack 'intellect' as 'the problem'. This is reason why Mark and Marsha
pretty much talk to themselves (apart from attempts by you and others to address their
misconceptions). Mark is the classic "my ignorance is just as good as your
knowledge" case study (with love to Asimov), which is why together they amount to
pretty much a constant bombast attacking those on this list that have/had direct contact
with Pirsig, and (gasp!) dare to cite and offer quotes from Pirsig in a forum dedicated
to discussing and understanding Pirsig's ideas.
Andre lamented the direction of things here, and the constant volume from those
who clearly do not understand Pirsig and really only serve here to shout down
anyone who actually spends time on Pirsig's ideas. Why do you think people like
David Granger never participate, even intermittently? Why do you think that of
all the people presenting and behind MSU's upcoming Pirsig conference, only DMB
spends any time here? Why do you think Ant, who is friends with Pirsig and who
completed a PhD through interaction with Pirsig, doesn't spend a lot of time
here anymore? I can say with pretty much certainty its not just because of the
nonsense and continual misconceptions, but the bombast that meets any attempt
to provide clarity to those who most obviously need it. And, of course, the
absence of these voices is exactly what they prefer, since anyone with
authority or insight into Pirsig's ideas is just a 'static intellectual
preacher'. But its created a vacuous space where anyone who a
ctually did come here to talk and learn about Pirsig would be met only with
the loud voices of those who understand Pirsig the least.
[DMB]
Since all philosophers are stuck in SOM, all thinking is hopelessly illusory,
all concepts are inherently reified, then nothing counts as excellence in
thought and Pirsig's words can never count as evidence for Pirsig's intended
meaning. You see the problem with that?
[Arlo]
I certainly do. And I imagine that aside from Marsha and Mark most do as well.
As you pointed out, if all philosophy is SOM, why even be here in the first
place? Why join an intellectual philosophical discussion about Pirsig's ideas
if you find intellectual discourse repugnant, philosophy hopelessly missing the
point of life, and Pirsig to be uninformative on his own ideas?
I get that, for some, feeding of animosity is kind of a psychological rush.
Trolling, is of course, a highly popular activity for the bored and
uninsightful. But seriously, when that becomes the bulk of the stuff here,
what's the point? Right now, I'd say the trolls are winning, since more than
95% of what I see come through are the trolls and the conflict they are hoping
to create. To be fair, I don't think Marsha is trolling as much as struggling
to interject the old SOLAQI thing, and looking for excuses to attack those who
have, rightly, rejected it as a representation of Pirsig's ideas. But Mark,
he's nothing but a troll, amigo.
In any event, don't be discouraged.
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
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
