[MD] Transhumanism

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mary]
... as we can see, even amongst "us who are the enlightened" (meaning we've all
at least read both books) there is little agreement on what exactly Mr. Pirsig
means.

[Arlo]
This is a topic I've been struggling with a lot. Notwithstanding the "we hates
us them acerdimics" rhetoric, most authors (I've encountered) attempting to not
only offer a new thesis but propose an entirely new metaphysics, spend a lot of
time ensuring their particular vision is at the very least articulated
methodically to avoid confusion about what *they* mean. Certainly, there will
always be camps of dissent, and always those who reformulate what any given
author has said. But while many argue over what these authors said that was
"right" or "wrong", very few can actually argue what they "said". 

I appreciate Pirsig's intention of letting the MOQ organically evolve. All
theories should (and most do). But they do this regardless of what an "author"
says. Join the Peirce discuss group and you'll see many people arguing for
dropping this and altering that and expanding this and including that and
excluding this and... etc. But very few argue what Peirce "meant". 

Here I think Pirsig does more of a disservice than a service. His silence on
many of these issues has plunged the MOQ into a perpetual argument over what he
himself was saying. Never mind extrapolating or expanding or evolving or
whatever. His fear of a "papal bull" has left instead an emptiness filled by
bickering. Where in a "normal" dialogue, we could say "Pirsig said that, but I
propose this", we are left spinning our wheels over what Pirsig said in the
first place.

Thus we see Bo not claiming to revise the MOQ or evolve it into something
better, but to claim that his understanding IS the MOQ, that even Pirsig
doesn't understand what he wrote. I see this kind of stuff with no other
author, even the ones claimed to be "difficult" like Bourdieu. Instead of the
normal "Pirsig proposed this MOQ, but I, Bo, propose this other MOQ building
from Pirsig", we get "if we ignore this part of what Pirsig wrote, we can claim
that this is what he really meant, and claim that those who disagree don't
understand him".