[MD] Transhumanism

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Matt]
Really?  I have to confess that I'm not on the inside of Peirce interpretation,
but people these days agree with what he meant by "Thirdness"?  I guess, I
wouldn't be skeptical if you told me there was a consolidated opinion,
but--given the visionary opacity of his writings--I can't imagine it will
always _stay_ consolidated.

[Arlo]
There is no doubt that more complex ideas will always give rise to differing
interpretations, no matter the depth of the author's investiture. But I think
if there is confusion around "thirdness" it has to do with the complexity of
the idea, not with silence or ambiguity on Peirce's part. That he *wanted* to
be crystal clear on what his concepts meant is inarguable. If Peirce was alive
and witness to "confusion" over thirdness, you could expect lengthy articles
and papers hoping to clarify his position. 

[Matt]
I guess what I mean to say is that, if a philosopher is saying something that
really is new, it will be slightly incomprehensible.

[Arlo]
Of course, all the more reason to ensure clarity, or strive for it. And all the
more reason to ensure to that misinterpretation doesn't derail the ideas.

[Matt]
If it's too easy and comprehensible, then it's not visionary--possibly quite
useful, but not visionary and it will be easy to understand what they "meant."

[Arlo]
Certainly. But I think my overall criticism here is that ambiguity is being
deliberately fostered in fear of "orthodoxy", a charge I have never seen
leveled against any other writer, any other author, any other philosopher.

But you captured this very eloquently, and I find no disagreement, with your
essay.

[Matt]
So when you say, Arlo, that "Here I think Pirsig does more of a disservice than
a service," I think you are probably right.

[Arlo]
As I said, your essay captures precisely my frustration here. Who among us
wants an "orthodoxy"? That's ridiculous. But dialogic evolution precedes from
clarity, not from unclarity. Disagreement stems from understanding the original
premise, how can anyone agree or disagree with something whose obscurity lends
itself to sometimes polar interpretations?

[Matt]
and I'm less sure about the sense I get from you that Pirsig abdicated a 
certain responsibility he had, though there's no sense I get that you want IKEA
answers--we all know they're pieces of shit that lean to the right).

[Arlo]
Like I said, I believe Pirsig absolutely believes his lack of participation is
a good thing, I don't think he is skipping out or abdicating anything in any
deliberate sense. But I disagree with him (if this is the case) that his often
silence (refusal to issue "papal bulls") actually helps the MOQ. 

[Matt]
It just creates the mess I tried to put my finger on above.  I don't think the
conversation stalls _because_ of Pirsig--that's all on us--but he certainly
didn't help some of the time.

[Arlo]
Agree. 

[Matt]
But when you say, from the standpoint you think silly, "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," I wonder if you have me in view
there. 

[Arlo]
Not at all. 

[Matt]
Perhaps you wouldn't think of me in the "don't understand him" bit, but I would
be inclined to say the first bit (if I were feeling a little outlandishly
controversial).  

[Arlo]
I've made no contentions about where I disagree with Pirsig, but I make this
stand from knowing what Pirsig said. Dialogically, this can only precede from a
position of understanding; to critique Peirce's "thirdness" one must have an
understanding of what he meant by the term... or else you'd end up like Rosanna
Rosannadana. 

But no, Matt, I've never gotten the sense that you do not understand Pirsig,
quite the contrary in fact. 

[Matt]
Just as in the law, the spirit/letter distinction is not only important, but I
think there's a real sense in which only later generations know what a
visionary "really meant."

[Arlo]
This is poetic, but its inaccurate. Later generations may decide that thirdness
"meant" hamsters, but I don't think that reflects in any way on Peirce's
intention. This isn't to say that they are always "wrong", they may be spot on,
its just that in the face of ambiguity to claim "this is what they meant" is
always porous. Sometimes, in the face of untimely deaths, we have no choice,
but at other times knowing what they "meant" could be clarified by the author.

In any event, as I said to John, I think whatever disagreement we have on this
is likely splitting hairs. Your essay captured my frustrations exactly, and I
thank you for that. Not only do you make the case more eloquently, but you've
explained yourself much better than I have.