[MD] Transhumanism

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[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.

[Arlo]
Before I get into this more, I want to say that it seems to me that the
majority of our disagreements tend to be arguing what may be minutia, so this
may smack as a bit of nitpickery. :-)

Okay. My point is that any author attempts to build an edifice. Others,
sometimes in agreement, sometimes in disagreement, use that edifice to build
other edifices; sometimes "add ons", sometimes a new floor, sometimes just
cosmetic remodeling, and sometimes tearing the whole thing down to its
foundation and building an entirely new structure.

For this to happen, there needs to be more-or-less agreement on what the
author's initial edifice is. Before critiquing Peirce's semiosis, I need to be
fairly confident I understand exactly what Peirce means when he says "icon" or
"sign". If there is enough swaggle room that one person can say "icon means
cheese" and another who says it refers to "hamsters", then how on earth can
Peirce's ideas provide a foundation from which to evolve?

This is why the majority of author's writing this type of stuff are very
prolific. They want to be understood. People can agree or disagree with
Peirce's concept of "icon", but no one can say that with that term he is
referring to "hamsters".

[John]
I think this process is best accomplished by us hashing out, "how it ought to
be".

[Arlo]
But that is how it is in every discussion or community-of-thought there is. No
one reads Peirce as if its sacred holy writ, and many have built a great deal
from his ideas (sometimes rejecting some, other times embracing them). 

I am not saying there needs to be "One MOQ to Rule Them All", a MOQ articulated
by Pirsig and no other. This is why I see the Bo issue as tension between
"Pirsig's MOQ" and "Bo's MOQ", and as such there is little problem. The
*problem* is precisely that areas of confusion have left both camps arguing
over claims to be "the MOQ".

You never hear Bo or his cadre admit that Bo's MOQ is a departure from
Pirsig's, you hear them say that the MOQ Pirsig intended to write is Bo's (if
only one ignore and revise sections of his work). This is where I give Ham
full-credit. He doesn't try to convince anyone that his work is really the
valid reading of Pirsig, he says "this is mine, and that is his". But with the
Bo situation, its not about saying "I, Bo, developed a new and different, and
better, MOQ than Pirsig. I'd like to talk about my MOQ because I think Pirsig's
MOQ is wrong". Instead, well.. you've read the banter.

[John]
However, this raises the question whether or not Pirsig should be part of our
process.  Whether he's one of "us".

[Arlo]
He should be, I believe. 

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
Don't misunderstand, I don't think Pirsig would do anything to undermine or
lend difficulty to the dialogue surrounding his work. I think he likely firmly
believes that would be participate more he would do damage. I disagree with
that. 

But yes, I am also not saying he is totally isolated from the context. His
involvement with Ant, for example, has been as open and supportive and an
author could be. I think Ant is to be praised for bringing us more and more
insights via Pirsig's correspondences and involvement with him.

Maybe what I want is another book. :-)

[John]
You say that there are conflicts?  That's life. 

[Arlo]
Sure. But conflicts over what an author "says" and conflicts over whether an
author is "right" about something are different animals.

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
I am sure he is. And I am equally sure he (as all people do) may change his
mind about some things (or not). Again, my point is only that for this dialogue
to happen, there needs to be clarification at all points along the way. If I
say "certain sufficiently complex non-human biological patterns demonstrate
social activity", I'd better be able to explain what I mean, no? Cows? Amoebas?
Dogs? Trees? And by being clear, you may respond by saying "no no, Arlo you
acerdimic buffoon, its based on X not Y", and maybe I'd come to agree, or maybe
not, but we at lease we'd be clear on our disagreement. Does this make sense?

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
I don't know of any other author who is accused of fostering "orthodoxy" by
ensuring the clarity of their ideas. Do we accuse Peirce of this because he
wrote lengthy treatises to precisely define his ideas? 

[John]
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?

[Arlo]
Sure I would. I make no secret of where I disagree with Pirsig. But this makes
it about ego and its not about ego. Its not about DMB is right and Bo is wrong
(or vice versa), its about Pirsig saying "this is what I think, this is what I
am proposing, agree or disagree as you see fit". 

I am sure, by the way, if we are talking about non-human sociality that this is
precisely what Pirsig would say. Maybe Pirsig would say "Arlo, your ideas about
non-human social activity are ones I do not agree with, and are not what I
meant when I formulated the MOQ's levels, Platt's insistence that the social
level is reserved exclusively for humans accurately captures my ideas". And I'd
be fine with that, I could then say "Mr. Pirsig, here is why I think you are
wrong, and why a MOQ is strengthened by including them". 

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
Bob the pope? Jeez, if I asked Peirce (via a medium?) to explain in better
detail what he meant by "icon", would I be treating him like Peirce the pope?
Would I be asking for a papal bull?

Okay, that's enough of my acerdimicly-biased long-windedness for now... :-)