From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 03:38:17 BST
>
>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
>
DMB,
I have no problem with the design of
the MOQ or the levels. I don't see Pirsig classifying people, I see
you doing it. Phaedrus, in my opinion represents the intellectual
level for Pirsig but as I pointed out Pirsig
said he was disappointed people thought he
was Phaedrus, that he was Pheadrus, Rigel, and Lila.
I have no problem with the design of the MoQ.
Classifying people is not what its all about to me.
I classify ideas as high or low quality, regardless
of whose mouth they come out.
Your particular above post is low intellectual quality to me
but I think typically your posts are high intellectual quality.
As Steve mentioned, Pirsig said you shouldn't be dominated by any static
level. I think associating yourself with one part is doing just that. I don't
think that I would approach people in a dynamic way with your method. I
understand that the ideas of Anna Nicole
tend to be consitently of poor quality and
Pirsigs and yours tend to be consistently high quality.
But to me if you just associate yourself with
one level (which is in my opinion is what
your categorization is doing) you are not going
to properly maintain your motorcycle.
Erin
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 - 03:26:01 BST