Gary and all:
Gary's Response: This is nonsense. To equate Pirsig's 4th level with only
scientific thinking & rationality is just fictitious and false reading of
the material.
DMB says:
This is a good example of what goes on way too much around here. Gary's case
is just one example of many. I'm not talking about WHAT he thinks, but HOW
he thinks. I'm angry and frustrated by it and it happens over and over. I'm
talking about the distortion of statements and then the refutation of the
distortion. The equation of the 4th level with ONLY scientific and rational
thinking? Nobody said that. Gary's response is to a post where I'd explained
that even stone tool making by our pre-human anscestors has been called
intellectual by scientists who study pre-humans but, I said, its a mistake
to equate this with rational scientific thinking AND Pirsig's 4th level. I
don't think they are identical. Its just that rational scientific thinking
is a very clear example of 4th level thinking. This distortion is no small
thing. It tends to make our discussion into a big confusing mess.
Another good example is Platt's response to Andre, who had said that greed
was not good. Platt's response was to ask Andre if he thought that "it is
moral to destroy billionaires like a doctor destroys germs?" The idea that
greed is immoral is thousands of years old, was expressed by Jesus Christ
and the Holy Roman Church is common to all the world's great religions, but
when Andre says it, Platt tries to paint him as a genocidal maniac. That's
just mean, dishonest and pretty damn stupid.
Platt also recently distorted something I said, which is that intellectual
values are most likely to be found among educated people and in scholarly
work. This slam-dunk no-brainer comment was myteriously transformed into a
completely different position, that intellectual values were to be found
ONLY among college professors. And instead of calling him on it, a bunch of
posters chimed in to comdemn comments I never made.
And as I said, these are just examples. How can we have a discussion when
we're attacking each other for things that were never said? This ugliness
throws a wrench into the whole process of discussion. Its unfair, pointless,
petty and a big waste of time. As Wilber says, it makes me feel a salmon,
like I have to swim miles up stream before I can have any fun at all.
And this busines of disagreement with Pirsig's basic structure is a real
gumption sucker too. Its fine it you don't wish to buy it, but then what the
heck are you doing here? I mean, I have a few nits to pick too, but I'm
seeing near total rejection of the very basic structure, of his definition
of the levels, of the order and development of the hierarchy of the levels,
and even a rejection of our ability to talk about quality. What's the deal
with that? This level of rejection makes discussion impossible. Critical
thinking and skepticism are crucial, but this goes beyond limits of
reasonablness. Those who reject the basic architecture of the MOQ to that
extent just don't belong here. They're like Klansmen at an ACLU convention.
It only shows a crippling level of confusion on your part.
Here's the thing. Pirsig welcomes further development and said there is
still a long way to go. The trick is to make the MOQ work as a total whole
system, so that all the parts fit together into an airtight vessel. Only
then can we add to it. Only then can we begin to pour other ideas into it.
Otherwise we only have a leaky boat that'll sink to the bottom of the ocean.
How was that? Angry, but civilized? I hope so.
DMB
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:19 BST