From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 02 2003 - 17:54:27 GMT
John,
>How long has this group been discussing the issues?
The name of this group was originally the Lila Squad. It was started (I
believe) by Diana McPartlin, who has since left (her leaving,
coincidentally, coincided with my arriving, about a year and a half ago).
The first postings were in August, 1997. A few people who've been here
from the beginning and are still here: Bodvar Skutvik, Magnus Berg, Platt
Holden, and Maggie Hettinger (Bodvar, Magnus, and Maggie only contribute
sporadically these days, whereas Platt, I think, has been a regular
contributor ever since the beginning). One person, Doug Renselle, went off
and formed his own website (www.quantonics.com) that does some of the
positivistic, "normal science" type things that people would like this
discussion group to do (a consequence of that, of course, is that the
vocabulary used at the site, quite consciously, has become highly, _highly_
idiosyncratic; I mean, worse than me ;-). Of course, there are a lot of
other people who've been here longer than a year and a half (my term of
existence), like 3WD, Marco, DMB, John B. (whose written many provacative
essays for the forum), Horse (who owns and runs the site now), Rog (now
called Paco ... maybe), Jonathon Marder (the resident working scientist),
Dan Glover (who created Lila's Child), Anthony McWatt (who's writing his
dissertation on Pirsig), Glenn Bradford (a major MoQ antagonist), Struan
Hellier (who we don't hear from anymore, for one reason or another, but he
was probably the most vocal and belligerent MoQ antagonist to ever grace
the coaxial cables of this website), and many others (my apologies if your
name should go here).
Your formulation of the question, particularly with the word "issues,"
gives me pause. I was about to say something to the effect that the
discussions change as people move in and out of the website, but I'm
curious: do any of you old-timers sense that there are "perennial questions
of the MoQ" that are constantly asked and reformulated time and time again?
I'm pretty sure there are a few, as I get that sense.
>Have you got any where with changing the vocabulary?
I tend to think I have. I think I have been able to follow through with
pointing some fingers at pressure points in Pirsig with some of Rorty's
tools. In particular, my post "Pirsig, the MoQ, and SOM" from October is a
bit of the fruits of my labors. Contested, of course, but I like the
vocabulary I'm using now.
>Have you had any success with this different argumentation or conversation
process?
I ... think so. I mean, I think the real addition is the realization that
when two people get in a tiff and it comes down to definitions of key words
(like "ir/rationality," "absolute," and "SOM" for me and Platt or
"metaphysics" for me and Wim), both sides begin to beg the question over
the other i.e. they begin to foul up what the other wants to say. You
can't resolve such a difference by anything remotely called argumentation.
Both sides can only offer reasons for wanting to retain their particular
definitions in the hopes that the other side will be persuaded to switch.
I think my conversations with people have made explicit my own position
(and others) because it soon becomes obvious what the key words are and the
reasons for retaining your own definitions, your vocabulary, are what
becomes important.
So, I think its just made things that much more explicit, at least when
people converse with me.
As for actual changes of peoples vocabularies, I think most people here,
contrary to what it might have sounded like from my post, are looking for
better words to describe their position. Most, but not all. It might not
seem like it because these changes happen causally. Its kinda'
inexplicable. You see a new word, see how its used, and go "Oh, that's
cool." Then you adopt the word and in the adoption the word begins to take
on new meanings, depending on how you then use it. Following my
"Confessions" post, I think the best thing this discussion group can do is
to try and persuade people that some of the words they use are helpful and
useful for describing things.
>Is the difficulty that we are trying to define an undefinable event?
That's probably a lot of it. As everyone is perfectly aware, Pirsig
recognizes the contradiction that is the Metaphysics of Quality. Pirsig
bets that the MoQ is worth this contradiction. I don't. On my account,
Pirsig, in trying to define the undefinable, ends up reifying,
hypostatizing, _encapsulating_ Quality which is exactly what he rails
against in ZMM. I think there exists a way out for him, for which he can
still say almost everything he wants to say without the negative side
effects. Others might also bet against Pirsig, but without following the
way out I've described in past posts. Still others bet with Pirsig. And
some bet with Pirsig, but with a few necessary modifications.
Matt
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 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 02 2003 - 17:49:43 GMT