From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 19 2003 - 23:12:46 BST
Matt and all:
DMB said:
I mean, one of the tests of any thought system has to be it practical
implications, but if one decides to use a thought system in a way that has
nothing to do with its actual implications and is only a reflection of the
will of the distorter, it simply says nothing whatsoever about that thought
system. It only tells you about the distorter himself.
Matt replied:
So how do you tell the difference between somebody using a thought system to
get "actual" implications and a distorter getting "fake" implications? ...
checking for actual implications is a matter of aligning your thoughts with
the creator's thought system, and the more they match, the closer you are to
getting actual implications of the creator's thought system. Right? So,
really, its a matter of aligning your thoughts with the creator's thoughts,
which are embodied in his thought system, our thoughts with Pirsig's
thoughts. So, why should we align our thoughts with Pirsig's?
dmb says:
Aligning our thoughts? huh? Since when does comprehension of ideas somehow
require that we align ourselves with the author? Where'd you ever get the
idea that we have to merge with a writer to understand his books? If that
were the case I never would have read MEIN KAMPF or THE HAPPY HOOKER. Its
funny. The way you think, not that little joke. I make a point, that
distorted misintepretations don't tell us much about anything but the
distorter, and a few lines later the issue has become Pirsig as a "prophet".
I don't see why its a philosophical problem to simply assert that people are
wrong, but that we ought not judge a church by its' hypocrites. We can't
right judge a book by a reader's distorted opinion. Its a matter of simple
logic. Your switch-and-bait sophistry does not convince. It only makes me
suspicious. And let's not pretend that we need to be intellectual zombie
slaves or that we need an absolute, eternal and perfect way to measure one's
comprehension skills. Let's just say full comprehension and total
misunderstanding are real enough, that they exist on the extreme ends of a
continuum, and that we have reasonably accurate ways to measure people's
skills in that regard.
Matt continued:
If you say, "Because Pirsig has had a Dynamic Quality insight," as far as I
can tell, that means Pirsig is a prophet which is like saying, "Pirsig has
seen the Truth, we must follow him."
dmb says:
This has already been addressed, but let me state another obvious point.
This forum is aimed at exploring Pirsig's MOQ. Being interested in Pirsig's
ideas is the whole point. Distortions of and distractions from that aim tend
to irritate people. That's why charges of religious zealotry are such a
cheap shot. Its not a matter of doctrinal conformity to simply beg for
relevance, accuracy, clarity and such. Its just a matter of good form,
keeping one's eye on the ball, if you will.
Matt continued:
If you say, "Because his thought system works better," then that means its
just a mash of our thoughts with other people's thoughts and that the goal
is to get better and better thoughts. Right? Isn't that why you like
Pirsig so much, because he works better, explains more, etc.?
dmb says:
Yes, it explains more and explains it better. But I just don't buy into what
you say about it. A mash of thoughts with other people's thoughts? As a
description of what constitutes a better thought, I think that's positively
bizarre. I think it works better because it explains experience, it matches
the data, and it hangs all that together in a coherent, concise way.
Matt continued:
Well, if it is simply a matter of getting better and better thoughts, who
the eff cares if you've distorted Pirsig's thoughts? As long as your
thoughts are better, who would really care if you dropped Pirsig when he
started to hurt more than help? ...As far as I can tell, you'd only care if
A) you were doing biography and wanted to know what Pirsig's thoughts were
or B) you thought Pirsig was a prophet.
dmb says:
I want to know what Pirsig thinks, yes. Obviously. Again, that is the
purpose of this forum. What else are we supposed to do here? Talk sports?
Trade stocks? No. Of course not. The question is, what the heck are you
doing? Bringing Rorty into this game is a bit like showing up at the
football stadium with a baseball mit and screaming that football is for
losers. Its rude. Its confusing. And it makes the cheerleaders cry. Oh, now
look at what you've done. The marching band is startig to wimper too.
It seems obvious to me that there is plenty of room to compare Pirsig with
other thinkers, especially the one's that will help to make Pirsig's idea
more clear or richer or whatever. And there's no reason why we can't bring
in criticism of the MOQ. But my problem with Rorty and your whole
neo-pragmatic approach is that it is such a different game that its very
hard to see how it has any real relevance to the MOQ. Apples and oranges,
you know. Sure, I can see how there might be some small sections in Lila
that could be looked at and compared with Rorty's ideas, but you seem to
miss the actual connections in favor forcing the connections by way of over
over-reaching distortions. (Repeatedly describing DQ as various kinds of
static things, for example.) Think of it. You are in a Pirsig discussion
with Pirsig readers, using Pirsig's terms, but you have your own special
pragmatic re-definition of those terms. This sort of thing is very
confusing. You can say whatever you like, but if you use the terms like "DQ"
in this context its only right to use it as Pirsig intended. Again, not as a
matter of theological orthodoxy, but as a simple matter of good manners, of
playing by the rules and with the right equipment. So are you gonna play
ball or just rip me off with more games of intellectual three card monty?
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 : Sun Oct 19 2003 - 23:16:50 BST