[MD] Transhumanism

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[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?

[Arlo]
I'd say we need clarification when camps with polar views can claim their
interpretation is "what Pirsig means". If some people can claim an icon is a
"hamster" and some people can claims its "cheese", then Peirce had better step
up and explain himself a bit better.

[John]
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....

[Arlo]
Seriously, what other author do we encourage to remain ambiguous, do we
encourage to remain silent lest we fall pray to orthodoxy and papal bulls or
endless rounds of explaining?

[John]
The sound of Pirsig's silence does not guarantee a quality MD, but it
guarantees the condition for a quality MD. 

[Arlo]
Again, what other author's ideas do we encourage silence from that author to
"guarantee a quality" discussion?

I think this misses the mark. Evolution (if we consider the MD to be a forum
for such a thing) occurs BECAUSE OF clarity in the author's ideas, not IN SPITE
of it! As I said, in order to critique Peirce's thirdness, I have to have a
pretty firm handle on what Peirce meant by thirdness, or else the conversation
struggles to advance.

[John]
That is, it opens up a space for us to express, which would be squelched by
constant leaning toward authority.

[Arlo]
As Matt eloquently pointed out, this is not about "authority" in the sense of
authority fixing belief, its about a necessary clarity to function as a
springboard to expansion and critique. 

[John]
What we do with that space is on  us.

[Arlo]
Yeah, I think we are talking past each other a bit here. Our activity here, as
advancing an evolutionary dialogue, is not hindered by clarity and precision by
the author, it is aided by it. Ambiguity is the obstacle, not clarity.