Killer blade and all,
I think killer blade's criticism about the discussions going on here is not of a higher quality than the discussion itself. I don't think everything that was posted here is rambling ignorant nonsense, nor that labelling subscribers as "old guys" is, in any sense, a sensible criticism. Also, I am convinced that blade could find a *lot* of challenges, additions, and clarifications to Pirsig's ideas if he would take the time to browse the archives diligently. Nevertheless, I will make some
new-year criticism myself.
<introspection>
(For what it's worth. I have never been a "main" poster in MOQ, and sometimes, much to my amusement, my posts have been completely ignored. I think that I am after something that have resemblances with MOQ but is different in scope or rationale, or different from the main interpretations of the MOQ, and thus I am not offended when ignored. I never unsubscribed because I am interested in the MOQ, even if the opposite doesn't hold).
</introspection>
I for myself did *never* browse the archives diligently. Lately, I just sat back from the discussion, read some of the messages, thrashed some without reading, mostly because I had a very little time available. What I noticed is that, despite the great volume of ideas that have appeared in MD and MF over the years, it actually seems that the group has a whole has *not* reached many clearly identifiable "results". The only such identifiable result I am aware of is SOLAQI.
This may be a result of the lack of depth of the discussion, as well as the result of a lack of an "operative memory" of the group. Each time a newcomer posts a message, if the message isn't simply ignored, it triggers a collection of extremely diverse replies, which seemingly share *no* common system of ideas except for those found in Pirsig's work. The latter are also *still* interpreted in a plethora of only vaguely similar ways. I am inclined to believe that this diversity of
interpretations may a consequence of the fact that Pirsig's books (and especially Lila) are actually somewhat muddled; and that even at the beginnings of these discussion groups, apparently, most posters didn't think or didn't admit this was the case. The father founders' attitude has been, as it seems to me, mostly like: "ok, let's build upon what Pirsig has said". The resulting architecture has one of its weaknesses in the fact that after all, what Pirsig has said is not clear nor
agreed upon.
A most frustrating thing is that the group as a whole seems to be unable to direct newcomers to previous posts, like, "we've discussed this thing before and we found out - etc etc". Building a FAQ for MD/MF would probably be impossible, as each "answer" to a frequent question (at least a metaphysical question) would count more opponents than supporters, and opponents would not agree on what is wrong with the provided answer.
This sounds much like confusion reigning. Perhaps some of you might want to see this as a good sign - saying the group is open-minded, there is no absolute truth, etc. But in the end, a metaphysics is something that *must* provide answers, and different answers should be objectively comparable in order to find the best one. It is a "degenerate" activity in Pirsig's words, but shouldn't it be a positive degenerate activity at least?
Andrea
killer blade ha scritto:
> Ok this explains a lot. Ive been trying in the four months since I found this place to understand WHY it consists of nothing but rambling mostly ignorant nonsense. What I have missed is that this is a group of OLD GUYS. There may be some youngsters coming and going but what I detect is that the long term members consist almost entirely of a middle-aged-going-on-elderly group so stuck in their ways theyre horrified of any new ideas.
>
> Its obvious that Pirsigs theories need a hell of a lot of work on them if theyre to make the transistion from ideas in a novel to a genuine metaphysics. Whether or not that can be done at all remains to be seen. I find it incredible that in five years youve made basically NO inroads in that direction. In fact it seems that his metaphysics remains exactly as it was when he published LILA. No serious challenges, no additions, no clarification of his frankly EXTREMELY MUDDLED book.
>
> Nope, it seems that the participants are quite happy just to wallow in that muddle as if thats all there is and all there ever could be. My interpretation of LILA was that it was supposed to be a starting pointthe first few steps on the way to a new metaphysics. But this group actually thinks that LILA is the last word on metaphysics and youre actually patting yourselves on the back for going round in circles for five years! What a complete joke.
>
> --- skutvik@online.no wrote:
> >Dear all MOQ Debaters.
> >I feel for an end-of-the-year "speech". I haven't monitored all
> >messages or followed every thread so I don't dare to make any
> >summary of the ideas, this year must be some record postwise
> >and December a yearly peak. As told I only have some vague
> >notion what has gone on at all groups of this "cocktail party",
> >guests have come and gone - and returned and our hostess has
> >left it seems. Yet, in spite of irrelevancies, disagreements and
> >political side-tracking the Quality idea has become worked out
> >another small notch. It's a marvel to see this lively forum and think
> >about all the years when I thought I was the only person in the
> >world to have discovered Pirsig ...as a philosopher.
> >
> >All right the Internet has changed everything - God, has it changed
> >things, a major thread could be dedicated to that topic - also the
> >possibility to get in touch with the relatively few that may share
> >one's taste philosophywise. There are many such discussions on
> >the Internet - every major philosopher seems to have/had one - and
> >I am of course biased, but there aren't many such long-lived sites
> >as this. The only drw-back is that it is still heavily US/European-
> >centered and when we speak about Zen, Buddhism, Taoism etc.
> >one may wonder where the people are the people who know these
> >things intimately? There must be some interested/-ing people at
> >the eastern front. The 11th of September brought some hefty
> >political exchange - no wonder - but things seem to have returned
> >to philosophy.
> >
> >The Focus "room" seems to be abandoned, who is to blame I don't
> >know - maybe the split-up was a bad idea from the start. Internet
> >exchanges have found a form etiquettewise and people have
> >learned how to behave, I wince when I think of my first experiences,
> >so I think the "Lila Squad" could be revived; Not to be different from
> >the present MD in style and management, but the name was good.
> >Horse will surely keep an eye on the exchange and intervene if it
> >becomes too heated.
> >
> >Earlier this year I participated at a new Pirsig Yahoo-club site, but
> >it's difficult having to start all over - like we did in 1997 - with people
> >only having some vague notion what the MoQ is about and no
> >knowledge of the moq.org's homepage or intention of reading its
> >"scrolls". I don't know how Doug Renselle's "Quantonic" site fares,
> >this is MoQ based, but with a slant towards Quantum mysticism,
> >nothing wrong with that and Doug has had a rather extensive
> >correspondence with Pirsig some of which is published at:
> >
> >http://www.quantonics.com/index.html
> >
> >It looks like Dan Glover's (paper) book project has stranded, I
> >haven't been in touch with him of late, but the digital "Lila Child" is
> >available, as is some background material about my - um -
> >SOLAQI interpretation. I may also reveal that Pirsig delivered some
> >commentary to the first months's (Lila Squad) exchange and that
> >Dan has this material. It's extremely interesting and is (soon
> >hopefully) to be found added to the "Child" at:
> >
> >http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Childintro.htm
> >
> >If anyone has been annoyed by my tendency to act the "Preserver
> >of the Pirsig Legacy" I beg your forgiveness, it's just that someone
> >must assume that role and besides I am starting to grow OLD (67)
> >and grumpy (is that the word?:-). You are all all right, I have seldom
> >met so many fine people, even those who I thought were alienated
> >permanently have proved OK - to say the least. No namedropping
> >here. Some of you may have another calendar and with that
> >reservations I wish you all a Happy New Year!
> >Bo/Bodvar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> >Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> >MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> >http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> **Short Advert**
> Web Hosting & Domain Names
> http://www.smackhosting.com
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
-- Andrea Sosio P&T-TPD-SP Tel. (8)9006 mailto: Andrea.Sosio@italtel.itMOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:45 BST