From: Mari (mld2001@adelphia.net)
Date: Sat Feb 08 2003 - 19:25:46 GMT
Hi David and all,
As virtually always David, you present a scholarly
"argument" no matter what the subject line may be. So does Matt and
others... i learn, i think, i'm amused, (found myself really laughing
out-loud at your excellent choice of words in your post in support of our
man Horse.) "Great stuff" as you often say. i also find myself wondering
what it is about this post and many other *great* posts that leaves me a
little ( i'm going to call it *incomplete* for lack of a better word ). So
i'm going to take a poke at presenting what i think it is that leaves me
this way.
You said: "......but I really think we have to admit that some
> views are just plain stupid, while others are must closer to accurate. I
> mean, if we can't tell the difference between a sound argument and a bogus
> assertion, then why bother discussing it at all."
When i read this i think "subjective" and "interpretive". And in this case i
even agree with your statement. But i bet that if we looked at a list of
posts here in the MoQdg there would be as much disagreement on what is or is
not "stupid" or "a sound argument" or "bogus" as there would be agreement.
The amount of disagreement is what puzzles me. The same "argument" goes
round and round being called all kinds of different things in the name of
MoQ discussion.
Way back when i first read ZMM the thing that "made sense" to me and "gave
me" what i saw as an excellent tool to filter out crappola was the idea of
looking for and identifying what was "subjective" and "objective". This was
my "subjective" "interpretation" of what i read. i put it to "practical use"
when i stopped being so damn attached to my "take" vs someone else's "take".
i looked, i listened, i asked questions, i adjusted "my" "subjective"
"interpretation" accordingly, and used it as need be to make things work
better becuase i didn't fight with and argue as much about things that had
no "winning" reslove...roads with dead ends and bad feelings.
Some one asked about "love" a few weeks back. After reading ZMM and applying
the lesson learned from reading the book, my "interpretation" of love
changed. An adage that i had heard before and never quite understood
suddenly made sense to me. "In order to have love you need to let it go."
When i "GOT IT" this meaning, my new "interpretation" it was like a light
went off in my head. As long as i demand that love is "this" ( any name you
want to call it): my subjective definition 'take", as long as i tried to
"own" it or "have" it, it would escape me. It could not be owned. That
became a metaphor for what i interpreted to be SOM. Now i understand that it
may not be this to you or Matt or anyone else but it worked for me and it
moved me to a new level of "Being". i didn't need to argue with you or
anyone else about what it is/was. It changed my art and art work because it
changed the way i saw things. i knew i knew, and i knew what i needed to do
to allow it to be, and to flow was to know the difference between subjective
and objective. ( Dynamic Quality ) "Love" happened when i let go of trying
to know better than you what it is. If we could agree that it (Love) exists,
then i don't think it serves any one or anything to hold on so tightly to
their "interpretation" supported by quotes from books and old masters. The
belief that you know love better than Matt or me or Straun or anyone even if
it is "obvious" that their take is "stupid" is still only an
"interpretation". What was it that Forrest Gump said "Stupid is as Stupid
does" or somethign like that. What an idiot right?
Then comes Lila. ( other things happened in-between but for illustration
purposes i'll say it this way ) Now SOM is not best anymore according to
Pirsig. i'm reading and doing a lot of "re-search" to help me understand.
It's difficult to let go of this old "understanding" that when a human being
starts "interpreting" a "thing" that "thing/object" becomes "subjective".
Assigning labels and values to "it" strengthens the weakness. But i'm doing
the best that i can to "understand" the new information presented in Lila.
When i found MoQ.org i thought it would help me fit the new pieces into the
old puzzle. MoQ has helped in some ways although not the ways i expected.
Pirsig introduced me to some "good" "subjective" stuff. And there is other
"Great stuff" out there and it has always made sense to me to use what works
best. Being aware and "Notice what you notice" is helpful. Being strong but
not too ridgid works well too. Not being so attached to the "I" in an
ego-centric way also has it's benefits. Truth be known that is one reason
why i never use an "I" when referring to myself.
"I" pumps up the attachement to the "interpretation" static latches me to
the "take". Ego knows best just ask the I. Notice what you notice. What are
you fixated on? How do you label things? How attached are you to those
labels?
i think that if David and Matt for instance quit looking for good
"arguments" and points to make and disagree about/on and instead looked to
focus on what good could come from "agreement" ( not on everything ) but on
a "practical goal" i think "Great Stuff" could take on a whole new look (
move up a level )
But from what i interpret people saying here in the MoQdg about this
possibility of moving the MoQ into a different form of action, few here ( at
least the good old boys ) don't want that to happen. They just want to
"argue" and "discuss". Scott said something like: this is a discussion group
that's what people come here for. i say: Okay, and that means what? It can't
move into practical action? Deeds? i don't even know what to call it because
someone is always ready to argue the meaning of everything.
Did Pirsig write this book just so people could talk about it? i think it
has greater potential than that. i wish a few people would say: okay I'm in,
what can I do. At least then we might have a "subject" that will lead to
something beside more argument.
Sam wrote back to Squonk: "Hiya Squonk, (welcome back - you still seem
incorrigibly rude, but that's
your style and you're free to choose it)"
Maybe that's what most of the old timers want: to discuss and to argue; it
seems that way to me anyhow. There's nothing wrong with that in and of
itself as there is nothing wrong with my wanting to move MoQ into "practical
application" Maybe no one here is interested in that. If there is anyone
beside Rudy, John From the Rock, and Dustin that think there's more to MoQ
than what we find here most of the time i wish you would speak up;
especially all of you who send me emails supporting my ideas in private.
Mari
> Matt and all non-fascists:
>
> Matt said:
> The Nazi wouldn't distort the MoQ.
> He wouldn't think he was distorting the MoQ, only we might.
> The Nazis aren't distorting the MoQ, they're interpreting it the same way
we
> are: in the way that makes the most sense to them.
>
> Kevin agreed:
> This sounds like a much more reasonable expectation of our Nazi's
> reaction to MOQ. They'll interpret it to suit their interests just as we
> do. So what prevents us from being Nazis? We do.
>
> Platt finds the MOQ perfectly supports his conservatism.
>
> DMB finds the MOQ perfectly supports his liberalism.
>
> Several find the MOQ perfectly supports Christianity.
>
> I find the MOQ perfectly supports my Atheism.
>
> DMB says:
> This is what I find so disturbing about pragmatism and other post-modern
> thought. It says the fascist way is just as valid as the other ways, or at
> least pretends there is no way to tell the difference between correct and
> incorrect interpretations. This kind of paralysis is a moral nightmare.
Its
> the stuff of horror movies. Its a black abyss. Its nihilism at its worst.
> And, for these reasons, I think its quite wrong, even dangerous. The fact
> that conservatives and christians tend to use the MOQ as their own
personal
> Rorschach test is nothing to be happy about. Sure, we all bring a certain
> amount of baggage with us, but distortions and corruptions are another
> matter altogether. I mean, it doesn't matter what bias you take with you
on
> the drive. If you exceed the speed limit, you risk getting a ticker, no
> matter how you "intepreted" the speed limit signs. (Try telling the
officer
> about the validity of mis-readings and see how far that gets you.)
>
> If a NAZI interprets the MOQ as supporting his NAZI views, that is not
just
> a different view. It is an error. If the conservative interprets the MOQ
as
> supporting his conservative views, that is not just a different
perspective.
> It is a mistake. If the christian takes the MOQ to mean that christianity
is
> recommended by the MOQ, that is not just looking at it in a way that makes
> sense to them. It is a distortion. I'd challenge anyone to find Pirsig
> quotes That "perfectly support" any of these things. I know this all
sounds
> very emphatic and imperious, but I really think we have to admit that some
> views are just plain stupid, while others are must closer to accurate. I
> mean, if we can't tell the difference between a sound argument and a bogus
> assertion, then why bother discussing it at all. Let us not slip into that
> mindless news age nonesense where "everything is everthing and nothing
> matters". (I actaully heard a guy say that, and he said it with a straight
> face. It was nearly twenty years ago and it still cracks me up.)
>
> Matt said:
> It is simply that the pragmatist knows no better way to explain his
> convictions than to remind his interlocutor of the position they both are
> in, the contingent starting point they both share, the floating,
ungrounded
> conversations of which they are both members.
>
> DMB says:
> Contingent, floating, ungrounded conversations? I reject the notion that
we
> only have a choice between this ethereal nowheresville and the rock solid
> foundationalism of the Plationic quest, whatever the heck that is. In
fact,
> these two horns seem more a matter of thought styles rather than
> philosophical positions. I mean it seems clear to me that people can be
> rigid pragmatism and playful about metaphysics, but this is only about
> people, not pragmatism or metaphysics. You know? Once a zealot, always a
> zealot. The content of the belief system may be altered but the ferocity
of
> belief remains unchanged.
>
> Matt said:
> pragmatism simply points out that our moral sentiments are gained by our
> contingent circumstances.
>
> DMB says:
> Or as Pirsig might put it. An individual's social level moral sentiments
are
> provided by the society wherein that individual grows up. I mean,
pragmatism
> does not contradict the MOQ in this. The MOQ, however, goes on to say that
> there are moral systems above and below this social level stuff. This is
> what saves it from amorality and nihilism. I don't see how pragmatism can
> avoid this dismal conclusion. It gives relativity a bad name. See what I'm
> getting at? It seems that pragmatism tries way too hard to be
> non-judgemental, tries too hard to give every voice an equal hearing and
> thereby looses the ability to make the kind of distinctions that are
> necessary in "doing" philosophy. Its like a tool built to take tools out
of
> our hands and so is, ironically, not very practical or useful.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> 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
>
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 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 19:26:12 GMT