Krimel said:
Arlo has not responded ATM but I found Dave's comments truly astonishing. Is
this the current MoQ orthodoxy?
Arlo replied:
Yeah, see, this "orthodoxy" rhetoric won't win you favor with me. It's rather
inane and jades my thinking that your comments even deserve a reply. There is
no "orthodoxy", there is Pirsig's ideas, and those who find value in them, and
those who do not and either reject or offer something they propose as better.
No one accepts Pirsig's ideas "because Pirsig said so" (orthodoxy), but because
to date nothing better has been offered. You think you are offering something
better, I get that, but if its rejected (by me or others), claiming its the
result of "orthodoxy" is just nonsense.
dmb says:
Exactly. Given the context (MOQ discussion group), this bit of criticism is
especially bogus - absurd even. I suppose the purpose of it is to deflect the
accusations I've been making against those who will not or cannot take the
textual evidence seriously. The purpose is to paint a negative picture of
anyone who actually engages the text and to portray willful ignorance of the
evidence as some kind of heroic act. Quite the opposite is true, of course.
Refusing to face the evidence and refusing to engage with criticism is just a
way evade the substance of the matter, the content of the criticism. I cannot
comprehend how people can do this without feeling deeply embarrassed.
Krimel also said:
Dave jumps all over the accusation of SOM and pummels it with the MoQ. Dave's
version of the MoQ seems to be a replacement of SOM.
Arlo replied:
Well, yeah, Pirsig's metaphysics (the MOQ) is meant to replace subject-object
metaphysics. To recap, this is the 'replacement'.
SOM: Subjects and objects precede experience ('we' experience 'stuff').MOQ:
Experience precedes subjects and objects (both 'we' and 'stuff' derive from
experience).
Other than restating over and over that you think that 'stuff' precedes
experience, and me restating over and over that experience precedes 'stuff', I
really don't know what your point is. Yes, I get that you think static quality
precedes experience, yes I get that you reject that Quality precedes subjects
and objects. Okay. So you reject Pirsig's foundational declaration. I get that.
So? What do you want? What are you offering better? Why does placing 'stuff'
(subjects and objects) as primary (preceding) offer something better than
Pirsig's metaphysics that isn't already old-hat (since its just SOM with Pirsig
terminology)?
dmb says:
Exactly. Since the MOQ is meant to fix SOM, that "genetic defect" in our ways
of thinking, how is it better to reject the fix and go back to the defect? This
rejection of the solution in favor of the problem it was supposed to solve not
only fails to be better than the MOQ, I don't see how it makes any sense at
all. And, even though Krimel has been presented with textual evidence from
Pirsig and James on this anti-SOM point, he still wants to characterize it as
"Dave's version" of the MOQ. In various ways, the textual is always treated as
something worthy of dismissal and use of such evidence is treated as if that is
somehow inappropriate. But actually, it's hard to image what could be more
relevant or appropriate.
As I read Krimel and Marsha, they're saying, "You orthodox pedants should keep
an open mind and listen while I tell you about the contradictory nonsense that
I've been so tenaciously clinging to for years, in spite of the all criticism
and evidence against it." All I can do is cringe and bang my head on the desk.
Here's a good one. On a scale from one to ten, how obvious is my point and how
bad is Marsha's reponse?
dmb said:
...But a metaphysical system is going to be nothing but concepts and
definitions, so we are talking about the distinctions, definitions and ideas
presented in Pirsig's books, not the primary empirical reality itself, not
Dynamic Quality itself. And this point is very much part of the distinction.
Static quality is supposed to be definable and we want to be able to
distinguish one idea from another. This is not a matter of dogmatism or
rigidity but simply a matter of clarity and accuracy about what these books say
and don't say. It's not that fancy.
Marsha replied:
Oh, don't in practice you mean RMP's books, and James's books and those books
you've read, by other authors, who interpret James? (Charlene says...) And I
suppose also books on American Pragmatism that you deem important? Whatever
suits your agenda? Give it up shortcake. You are at the very least a hypocrite.
dmb says:
See what she did there? Marsha's contention is that comparing the MOQ with
James's work and identifying it as a form of mainstream American pragmatism is
just something that suits my agenda and has nothing to do with RMP's books.
This is just another instance wherein the textual evidence is willfully
ignored. Doesn't everyone know by now that this comparison and identification
is justified by Pirsig himself? I've posted this evidence many times. I wasn't
really interested in James or pragmatism but once I started following up on
Pirsig's comments in Lila, particularly the last few pages of chapter 29, it
became increasingly clear how illuminating the comparison actually is. At first
I felt dread because I had the impression that it was trivial and boring but,
as it turned out, I was able to produce 60 pages of parallel quotes. More than
half of my Masters thesis consists in simply showing all the many ways they are
saying the same thing. And that doesn't even include Lila, fo
r the most part. Pirsig was already a pragmatist and a radical empiricist back
in ZAMM, before he even thought to identify with James or pragmatism. It's
really quite astonishing and illuminating. You get to see the same ideas but
they are articulated in a different style and sometimes in different terms. But
then sometimes the terms are exactly the same too, especially the central
terms, which just happen to be the ones in contention at the moment. And yet
Marsha wants to suggest this is not legit and it's not supported by the text
either. That's just about as wrong as a person can be. It's spectacularly
wrong. I've presented the evidence for this directly to Marsha, this is a copy
of one such case from a little over two years ago, although it was far from
being the first time...
"...But to Phaedrus it seemed that James's generalizations were heading toward
something very similar to the Metaphysics of Quality. This could, of course, be
the 'Cleveland Harbor Effect', where Phaedrus' own intellectual immune system
was selecting those aspects of James' philosophy that fit the MOQ and ignoring
those that didn't. But he didn't think so. Everywhere he read it seemed as
though he was seeing fits and matches that not amount of selective reading
could contrive." (p. 363)
"James said, 'Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a
category distinct from good, and coordinate with it.' He said, 'The true is the
name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief.' TRUTH IS A
SPECIES OF GOOD. That was right on. That was EXACTLY what is meant by the MOQ.
Truth is a static intellectual pattern WITHIN a larger entity called Quality."
(p. 363-4. Emphasis is Pirsig's in the original.)
"...James had condensed this description [of radical empiricism] to a single
sentence. 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality,
because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and
flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for
the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality." (p. 365)
"The Metaphysics of Quality is a continuation of the mainstream of twentieth
century American philosophy. It is a form of pragmatism, of instrumentalism,
which says the test of the true is the good." (p. 366)
How much selective reading would it take to ignore this and construe James's
thought as irrelevant or at odds with Pirsig's text? It IS Pirsig's text. How
could the similarities between James and Pirsig be any clearer or more
straightforward? Is there any reasonable way to disregard or dismiss this
evidence? I don't see how. Evade and insult, evade and insult. That's been
Marsha's style for a long time now and that's totally bogus, illegitimate and
very, very dishonest. Even her insults are predicated on lies. It's disgusting.
And now Krimel want to be the lap dog of this sickening fool? Oh, dude. Have
some dignity - and some taste.
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
