[MD] Transhumanism

[MarshaV]

Hi Arlo,

Maybe this points to the difference between the intellectual and the wise man;  
somethings can simply be taught, wisdom needs to be recognized.   


Marsha





On Jun 19, 2010, at 12:40 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [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".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___