From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Feb 21 2005 - 14:12:43 GMT
Hi DMB,
I feel to answer your question I have to claim to know the real interpretation of Pirsig which I am not comfortable doing. But from my point of view I will say it is hypothetically true that it is possible that some disagreements are due to misunderstandings and that you are of course welcome to try and correct them. But from my point of view it is also possible that interpretation of your posts is NOT the problem but you failing to see the point of Scott's is.
Erin
David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org> wrote:
Hello DMB,
I am aware of your frustrations with Pirsig criticisms but let me assure you that when somebody is criticizing a point Pirsig has made they also tend to exprience frustration with the Pirsig fundamentalism goggles some people tend to where at times. When somebody here expresses a disagreement there is a knee-jerk response (ha that choice of words is just for you Ron) - that a DISAGREEMENT = misunderstanding.
[David Buchanan]
I like to believe that I can see the difference.
You just listed a long list of how Pirsig is consistent. I didn't understand how consistency was the issue-----it is a issue if the assumption that a disagreement is due to a misunderstanding of his works but if you think you understand his position and that it is consistent but that you just disagree with it then your list of consistent statements is pointless.
[David Buchanan]
But here it look like you can't see the difference. The issue here is not whether or not Scott agrees with the MOQ. It is about whether or not Scott understands it. Or at least that's my view and that's what I tried to demonstrate in that post. You may recall that I included several examples of Scott asserting his take on what Pirsig thinks. And each time I tried to show how he was reading the MOQ through SOM assumptions, the same SOM assumptions that Pirsig has been so consistent in attacking. Ant was making the same case to some extent and so those clips were included too. To read Pirsig this way is not to disagree with Pirsig, but to misunderstand him. Scott is insisting that Pirsig holds certain views that he disagrees with, but when we look we find that Pirsig does not hold these views. I'm trying to show how it is that Scott is disagreeing with assertions that Pirsig does not make. See? Scott often has interpreted Pirsig's statements to mean the very opposite of what they are
supposed to mean. That's a misunderstanding.
So it is frustrating when you repeatedly explain what somebody thinks they already understand but just DISAGREE with.
I consider myself a Pirsig supporter but I disagree with him about particular points in his philosophy. I am really frustrated that when I do disagree with Pirsig about a point it is automatically assumed that it is because I don't REALLY understand what he is saying.
For a second can you consider the mere possibility that a person understands what Pirsig says and disagrees with it.
dmb says:
Sure. Can you imagine the possibility that a person can misunderstand? I've done it many, many times and fully expect to misunderstand more things in the future. As far as I know, personal agreement or disagreement with Pirsig hasn't really been on the table. One of the biggest parts of my frustration is that we have not yet been able, as a group, to do anything with the MOQ because there is so much confusion about what it actually is. There are a million details to fill in and flesh out, but instead we are here trying to get people to grasp the most basic ideas. It feels like a have a brand new sporty little BMW convertable but have never so much as taken it out of the driveway - for several years.
Ant: However, I can see why he (and Marsha) are frustrated with your recent
posts because you are tending to distort the MOQ rather than clarifying or
adding to it.
We are here to clarify and add to the MOQ but I think that if critiquing of his work is not welcomed and every disagreement is assumed to be a misunderstanding and labeled a distortion we are doing a disservice to his work and philosophy.
dmb says:
Like I said, I've tried to show the nature of Scott's misunderstanding. I haven't just labeled it or assumed it. Would you take a look again and tell me if you don't see that effort?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Feb 21 2005 - 15:22:14 GMT