[MD] The Greeks?

[Mary]

Hi Bo and all,

> Right, the Paul Turner letter's ending "... this is no Papal Bull,
> perhaps
> just bull.." alternates between infuriating and humbling me. 
[Mary Replies] 
Even when you are 100% convinced you are right, it is considered poor form
to say so, and far worse, poor strategy.  To hedge your bets and leave the
door open a crack is the art of the canny manipulator and master face-saver.
No matter whether the end result is the triumphant "I told you so" or the
humbling "yes, you may be right", you can proclaim inner victory either way,
for when you are wrong you can take comfort that you gave the appearance of
magnanimous open mindedness.  The East has raised the practice of
face-saving to a fine art and some here in the West know it better than
others.  As an aside, one of the many things I admire about Jesus was what
appears to be his refusal to play that game, the seeming archetypal ego-less
individual. 

The problem with 'having not the courage of your convictions', however, is
just that.  There are times when it is appropriate - no _demanded_ of you to
do so.  To waffle about your own metaphysics only makes others think it
incompletely thought out.  Now this is certainly forgivable.  Most of us
operate under, at best, an incompletely thought-out or, at worst, received
philosophy that's never been rigorously tested.  No one really expects the
random person accosted in the street by the roving TV camera crew to produce
a coherent and fully-formed metaphysics with the signing of the release
form.  But if you're going to do as Pirsig did and first define the terms
under which you are willing to argue, define the problem, then propose the
solution to the problem you yourself have defined, you really need to be
willing to stand behind it and speak in clear terms about it.

Pretty damning condemnation of Pirsig, huh?  Well, though I just said it, I
don't even believe it myself.  He's a very smart man and I don't for a
minute believe he's overlooked this.  And I don't think I give him this out
based on the dazzle of celebrity in my eyes either.  

I think he meant what he said, because if he didn't, then how am I to
believe he meant what he said about anything else, either?

   
All in all
> Pirsig's insight is unique, it spells an in-out turn of the
> metaphysical
> sock and as no one can avoid metaphysics  it means a new reality.
> 
> > For Pirsig to say that the Intellectual Level is thinking itself when
> > this seems to surely fly in the face of all he has said before must
> > mean something, and I find it telling that he views his ideas as a
> > beginning point of inquiry and not an end.
> 
> To say that I agree is too weak, but I've run out of adjectives.
>
[Mary Replies] 
Well, as you may have seen in his reply, Matt did not agree.  He viewed my
statement as "obvious" no doubt to the point of yawns, but without
explaining why.  I was about to drift off into saying what I think Matt
meant by that, but decided better of it.  Matt thinks what Matt thinks and
is welcome to explain for himself.

For me, though, I keep circling and circling this subject like the
metaphorical stupid shark in the water, kind of half hoping I'll get
distracted by some other bright shiny object and have a reason to move off
before I really have to come to grips with this.  I may be a stupid shark,
but I'm smart enough to know that if I take a bite out of this one it might
end up eating me instead. 

Oh what the hell.

So here again is what's captured my single-minded attention: "For Pirsig to
say that the Intellectual Level is thinking itself when this seems to surely
fly in the face of all he has said before must mean something".

What this means is that thinking itself _is_ SOM.  No more, no less.

It's the only thing I can come up with and the result is overwhelmingly
positive.  You are right, I am right, DMB is right, Matt is right, John is
right, Platt is right ... _and_ most importantly, Pirsig is not waffling.

A win-win.  No zero-sum here, John.

What say you, Bo?

Best,
Mary