From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 02:12:11 BST
Steve, Erin and all:
Steve:
You seem to be missing the point, DMB, or are sidestepping the issue with a
'misfit' category that as Pirsig says is one of those words that is supposed
to pass for an explanation but really just says the categories you are
trying to impose don't work.
dmb:
I get it. You and Erin think the case of the unabomber seriously undermines
my case. I don't think it does and tried to explain why. How is that an
evasion? And I'm not saying the unabomer is some unexplainable platypus, I
offered an explanation. You're certainly free to disagree or question that
answer, but to pretend it was not offered and then condemn me for it? Why?
Steve said:
If you want to disagree about the usefulness of classifying people into the
MOQ levels in a response to the exchange that erin and I had, then I think
you have to say which of your categories each of the people mentioned fall
into to show us just how useful your categories are.
dmb says:
Hmmm. The usefulness of MY categories? I'm quite sure that we're talking
about PIRSIG's categories. Naturally we can only get at that by discussing
your understanding and comparing it to mine, but let's not pretend classify
people or things according to the levels is MY controversial invention.
Pirsig classifies people and things from cover to cover. In fact, to address
your objections to "classifying people" I simply posted some key examples of
Pirsig doing exactly that. In addition to major historical figures like
Hitler and FDR, there is the most elaborate example of all, Lila, the title
character that is explored throughout the book. As Pirsig explains, the
whole point of writing the book was to explain why people have different
perceptions of quality. And his basic answer is that "everybody is after
quality", but some people, like the fictional Lila, don't see intellectual
quality at all. (I've cited Anna Nichole Smith as a non-fictional example of
this kind of biologically dominated person.) Its "beyond her range", as
Pirsig put it. "intellectually, she's nowhere", he says. He says "she's
pretty far down the scale" socially too. She is the title character for a
reason, because she was invented to explain these differing perceptions of
quality. Classifying people is what its all about. What good would it be if
it didn't? We shold be able to sort out the ideas and notions presented here
in exactly this way. We should be doing MOQ deconstructions of current
events here. That's what I think the levels and "classifying" are all about,
and this is not something read between the lines or borrowed from Wilber.
Pirsig says so explicitly. Said it worked so well that he was tempted to do
it all day. Not that its quick, easy or certain, but that is the main
purpose. What good is it otherwise? But instead of using the MOQ to explain
things, we get this. Bummer.
I suspect there's a reason why so many have so often objected to the way
Pirsig sorts things out at the social and intellectual levels. And here I
have to get personal, so I have to say that these suspicions are not aimed
at Steve or Erin, but are general observations about what has gone on here
for months and years. And I think its interesting, even though I'm angry and
complaining about the source of that anger, because the conflicts here often
reflect the conflict between the two levels. I mean, it seems that the
greatest resistance to the distinction comes from those who are threatened
by it, by those who don't like to see Pirsig putting the values they hold
most dear in anything but the highest level of values. I've seen religious
people tear the distinction apart in order to preserve the status of their
beliefs. I've seen Victorian types fuse the distinction between the 3rd and
4th level so as to cheat their way up the ladder. I've see untrained and
uneducated voices bash intellect in favor of aesthetics, intuition and
instinct. I've even seen repressed conformists demonize the creative and
dynamic. In short, I've seen lots of efforts to rearrange these levels so as
to justify previously held values, in spite of the fact that it distorts or
flatly contradicts what is in the book. This kind of intellectual dishonesty
deserves a name of its own. Whatever the name, this way of using the MOQ as
some kind of narcissists Rorschach test is what makes me so angry. Not just
because it is so transparently self-serving, but because its a huge
distraction. Are we not here to discuss Pirsig's MOQ? As far as I know,
Pirsig's is the only MOQ. Please, let's do talk about that instead of
running around in circles trying to protect our egos with this or that
alteration of the levels. Its like eveybody is trying to fix the engine
THEIR way, but eveybody is doing it all at once so it never works. For
Pete's sake, stop with all the jerry-rigging and get some respect for the
original design. Let's get this machine moving, cause I've seen enough
self-serving bullshit to keep my garden green for the rest of my life.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 Jul 14 2003 - 02:16:57 BST