[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Case]

[Dan]
But we are here to discuss Robert Pirsig's MOQ, are we not? Wouldn't it be
prudent to count him as an authority?

Beyond that, there seems to be a general lack of appreciation (on some 
contributor's parts) for the difficulty of writing a book. You're never 
going to get it right. Ever. No matter how long a labor, it can always be 
better.

[Case]
As an explicitly named co-conspirator I would like to point out that
discussing Pirsig's work is one thing. Treating it as gospel is quite
another. I can not imagine that anyone who posts here does not appreciate
Pirsig's work. If all the effort he put into writing it was not valued this
forum would not exist.

[Dan]
Armchair quarterbacking is related to kibbitzing as Robert Pirsig defines it

in the intro to LILA'S CHILD. It is a person (usually male) who despite a 
complete lack of talent on their part are nonetheless confident in the 
superiority of their own ability and will proclaim loudly to anyone within 
earshot that they could do so much better than the jokester who is actually 
out there playing the game.

I do not feel a need to get into specifics though.

[Case]
Actually in the introduction to Lila's Child Pirsig says kibitzing is
something HE seeks to avoid as a pro commenting on an amateur event.

But he also says in the same introduction:

"...what we see is dominated by the philosophy of the members: nothing is
cut and dried, nothing is asserted with mind-numbing scholarly precision, no
big reputations are at stake, there is just the happy process of thinking
about things. The participants don't always get it right and no one expects
them to. They are just trying out different ideas against each other just to
see how they work. The fact that everyone knows that everyone else might be
wrong make it that much more interesting and as you read along you see that
the thinking gets better and better."

Better and better in Pirsig's own terminology implies evolution and Dynamic
change. Are you suggesting this process stopped in 2003? 

[Dan]
The beauty of the MOQ lies in its simplicity yet many readers of LILA want
to introduce more or less levels or even rearrange the levels and then they
go on to define Dynamic Quality. And they wonder why they get accused of not
reading the book in the first place, so they do a copy and paste job to
impress everyone. I'm sorry but I am not impressed... at all.

[Ian]
>I never use the cheap trick of pasting Pirsig's words to rationalise
>my own arguments. My approach is always to synthesise - bring in
>alternative supportive material.

[Case]
In the past I have rarely quoted Pirsig assuming that there was no need. But
after being directly accused of not understanding the MoQ I did so recently
and may do so more often in the future. If you are not impressed then say
why or point out how such quotes are misunderstood, taken out of context or
otherwise abused.

But if we are not supposed to be critical and not supposed to offer up
quotes what's left?

[Marsha]
Without the effort of the climb, or the hardship of the journey, you seem to
resent not having the perspective of the Sage.

You want to rearrange the levels for who???

[Case]
I thought this was the climb. Is this not part of the difficult journey? How
are we supposed to get through Sage school if we can't play around with the
furniture?