From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 15:38:01 BST
Hi DMB,
> 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?
>
I don't disagree with your answer. It's just that your answer supports the
case that erin and I were making that a types of people application of the
MOQ can't deal with distinguishing a Ghandi from a unabomber. To us this
seems to be a serious limitation of the types of people way of applying the
MOQ.
You said this instead of classifying the unabomber and Ghandi as social or
intellectual:
"We don't Wilber to tell the difference between Ghandi and the unabomber.
Pirsig spends some time talking about the difference between evolutionary
contrarians and mere criminals. As examples, he writes of the Brujo, Ghandi,
lincoln, John Browne, the Bohemians and hippies, and he writes of his own
role as a cultural contrarian. Sometimes its hard to tell the difference
between moral RE-generation and moral DE-generation, but not in this case."
Steve:
Of course we can tell the difference. The question was whether a types of
people application of the MOQ can tell the difference. Are you adding two
other types to social and intellectual types of people? Criminals and
contrarians? How many levels are there? This is what I mean by 'misfits.'
You continued...
"Ghandi expanded freedom for millions and served the process of life through
peace and wisdom while Ted spread fear and death for a cause all his own.
Slam dunk. No brainer. Color me judgemental, but I think its obvious. Also,
I'd again concede that clarity is a good thing, but I find it almost
unimaginable to think of social or intellectual values, without thinking of
specific and concrete examples. Pirsig hardly does anything else..."
Yeah, but you still didn't say what type of person they are.
> 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.
Steve:
He also talked about patterns of value. I don't understand why you find it
so objectionable to do the same when clarity is needed. Try it, you might
like it.
DMB:
>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.
Steve:
I didn't mean to imply that you made up talking about types of people and
types of societies and so on. I think it is very useful as well; however,
you seem to think it's the whole MOQ and that it can be done without first
understanding types of patterns of value. My point is that when there is
disagreement about whether something is social or intellectual (which is
pretty much all the time on this list) the way to clear it up is to go back
to the more technical and specific definitions that Pirsig suggested and
argue in terms of types of patterns of value. Otherwise, the arguments go
round and round.
DMB:
> 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. ... 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.
Steve:
To me this last bit all sounds like argument for talking about types
patterns of values instead of types of people when such personal biases
cloud the issue.
Thanks,
Steve
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 - 15:39:49 BST