[MD] Transhumanism

[John Carl]

Arlo,

[Arlo]
> To clarify, I am talking about the MOQ, not Quality. And yes, I do think
> that
> evolution builds from a foundation of knowing what an author is saying.
> About
> Quality, no, I do not want it crisply defined or any such thing. But the
> metaphysics he is proposing, yes, I do think that its important to know if
> his
> ideas about an intellectual level refer to this or that. Precisely so
> disagreement and evolution can precede.
>

John:

Fair enough.  I think you're absolutely right that metaphysical formulation
SHOULD be
crisply defined, but I don't agree that this process is best accomplished by
Pirsig issuing occasional corrections.

I think this process is best accomplished by us hashing out, "how it ought
to be".  However, this raises the question whether or not Pirsig should be
part of our process.  Whether he's one of "us".

So we come back to the koan, "who is us?"

And here, I disagree with your assertion that Pirsig is distant and aloof
from all argument and  that he refuses to take sides.  I believe quite
firmly that he is involved in this project and these discussions.  That
there are people here who "get it" and these people to a great extent
channel Pirsig's thinking.  I even believe one of these people is you, Arlo.
 And one of them is me.  Bob is with us.

Ommmmmm.....

You say that there are conflicts?  That's life.  That's the process.  There
are conflicts within Pirsig's teachings just like there are conflicts in
Pirsig's personality and there are conflicts within you, me and everybody.
 Resolving conflict is a process.

Deal with it.


> Example. I make no bones about my inclusion of certain other biological
> patterns at the social level other than "man". When I say this, I know that
> Pirsig said X, and I am saying Y, and so what I am saying is an expansion
> based
> on his ideas. I am NOT arguing that Pirsig really meant to include
> non-humans
> if you only ignore and revise some of his writings.
>
>
Right, and I agree with you on the inclusion of other animals in social
patterns.  And Pirsig doesn't agree.  But the WAY he disagrees shows it's
not a papal bull on his part, but an open-ended question he himself is
interested in seeing pursued.  He says his decision to make social
patterning solely a human level is based upon his own confession of "where
to draw the line".

Thus it seems to me that where the author offers his own questioning and
equivocation, we have room to discuss while staying within the bounds of
orthodoxy.  Thus structure and room to grow both.




> But that is precisely what IS happening in the majority of perennially
> unchanging exchanges here. The argument is seldom about whether or not
> Pirsig
> is right or wrong about something, but about what he meant. And he could
> end a
> lot of that, and allow the dialogue to move into where he is right and
> where he
> is wrong, etc.
>
>
Perhaps you have more of a good point than I'm giving credit for.  You've
been much more involved over the years than I.

But think of it this way, Arlo, if Pirsig stepped in and said "I think Platt
is much closer to the MoQ than Arlo" would you continue to argue with him?
Or would you throw up your hands and go away?   And conversely, if he sided
with you, then perhaps Platt would leave in disgust (hah, like that's gonna
happen).

So put it out there for discussion.  What are the three main points you wish
would be clarified by Bob the pope?  I'll answer in his name if you think
that will help.  And then you can argue with me.



John

PS:  Here's a supporting snippet for my assertion of enlightenment's
 realization through process of conflict-

"The multiplicity of mind is accommodated by the MOQ. It says you can have
many mental patterns and many people do. The characteristics of the narrator
of ZMM are one pattern that was in my mind. The characteristics of Phaedrus
were an entirely different pattern in my mind and those two patterns hate
each other. The MOQ says that you can split a person out in lots of ways and
that the patterns which we call our minds are the result of separate paths
of karmic history and we don't really reconcile them very much." [Pirsig,
1993]