[MD] Transhumanism

[John Carl]

Matt, Arlo,


First Matt, I wanted to chime in with you on "imo" and make a point about
that.

I used to disparage it inwardly, every time I saw it.  Of course it's your
opinion!  Duh!  Everything we write is "our opinion".

But then I caught myself using it.  And then again.  And then more and
more.  Is it just a sloppy redundancy or does it have a rhetorical
justification?  A bit of thinking about "my opinion" as opposed to other
thought-formulation shows us that our opinions are thoughts that we don't
assume are shared by others.  I'm glad you're familiar with Peirce, because
his "thirdism" is an explanation of this way of explaining meaning.

At least, I'm pretty sure.  I didn't read Peirce, but I read Royce and Royce
got his triadism from Peirce.

But you see then, that when Pirsig says "in my opinon" he's tagging a
certain thought-formulation as not-assumed by the other.

I cut out a good quote from somewhere, a while back, but I forgot to tag
where it came from.  It appears to me that it came from you!

"As Pirsig put it "what guarantees the objectivity of the

world in which we live is that this world is common to us with other

thinking beings. Through the communications that we have with other

men we receive from them ready-made harmonious reasonings. We know

that these reasonings do not come from us and at the same time we

recognize in them, because of their harmony, the work of reasonable

beings like ourselves. And as these reasonings appear to fit the world

of our sensations, we think we may infer that these reasonable beings

have seen the same thing as we; thus it is that we know we haven't

been dreaming. It is this harmony, this quality if you will, that is

the sole basis for the only reality we can ever know." Pirsig says

that this sort of intersubjectivity is the only basis knowledge

claims. Rorty obviously agrees."

So "in my opinion" is an important rhetorical marker for something where the
intersubjective agreement is not yet established, but hoped for or sought.



> [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.
>
>


John:

Arlo, I'm hearing you that you're not pleading for the papal bull on every
detail of the MoQ, but just clarification on what Pirsig said.  He said
quite a lot, tho, and if we need his clarification to clear up his thought,
will we not also then need clarification of his clarification?  I mean,
you're already asking for Pirsig's authority on Pirsig's meaning.  This
could go on forever!  Pirsig explaining what Pirsig meant when Pirsig said
Pirsig's thoughts on Pirsig....

The sound of Pirsig's silence does not guarantee a quality MD, but it
guarantees the condition for a quality MD.  That is, it opens up a space for
us to express, which would be squelched by constant leaning toward
authority.

Just like Phaedrus's students howls of outrage when their teacher expected
them to think for themselves, our discomfort with the vacuum left when the
teacher abdicates the authority role is understandable.  But without that
vacuum, we would not have room to authentically be.

What we do with that space is on  us.