From: john williams (ducati900@bigpond.com)
Date: Thu Jan 02 2003 - 21:50:03 GMT
Hi Matt
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.
Maybe a position is open for some one to go through the archive and pull the
major threads a themes together and see if there is a conclusion or two to
be drawn?
Matt said: 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.
>
It is entirely possible to come up with a good idea, no great idea, but not
be able to completely see it through to it's conclusion. Especially when
from the outset you have stated that the most important element is
undefinable.
What I got from ZMM though was that Pirsig wanted his ideas implemented or
at least trialled.
As to the schooling question, imagine having your first year (what do you
call them, "freshman") students already recognising a quality moment,
understanding crystalization of thought and having gumbtion or at least
knowing what it is. I'm sure I could work thoughs things into a 10 year olds
school year.
One last point, I'm a high school graduate, I haven't been to Uni yet.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt the Enraged Endorphin" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: MD Reprint of "Confessions"
> 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).
>
> >
> >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?
>
> > 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
>
>
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 - 22:02:14 GMT