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

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction
>Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 01:14:31 -0500
>
>[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.

Many posts I read do not seem to reflect your optimistic perspective.

>
>[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.

"A kibitzer is the guy who stands behind your shoulder in a chess
match and tells you all the great moves you could have made if only
you were as smart as he is." (Robert Pirsig)

Years ago I owned a shop where I cleaned rugs and furniture damaged in fires 
and floods. It was dark in there with only a few old lights scattered here 
and there. So one week I put up a brand new string of lights right down the 
center of the aisle. 18 of them all in a row. Boy did that light up the 
shop!

Oh, a year went by I guess, and one day one of my new employees came into 
the office telling me the lights quit working. Now I knew when I put them up 
that the wire I used at the junction box wasn't rated as high as it should 
have been but I used it anyway just to save myself a trip to the store. So I 
knew right away what was wrong with the lights. I was in fact expecting it.

But this kid I had working for me insisted that he knew exactly what was 
wrong and he insisted on telling me how to fix it. I listened politely, told 
him he better be getting back to work, and I went ahead and got new wire and 
fixed the problem.

But I have to tell you, it really irked me for that kid to stand there 
telling me how to fix those lights when he had no idea what he was even 
talking about, and whats more, he had no idea that he had no idea.

Anyway, it's sometimes best to remember who it is you're talking to.

>
>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?

Of course not. Where do you get that idea? From your own misquote?

>
>[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.

Your post wasn't addressed to me. Since you previously complained about a 
perceived "double team" I just let it go.

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

Is this Silly Question Day? Darn. No one told me and now I feel bad as I do 
not have one to share.
>
>[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?

Nonsense.

Late, late, for a very important date...

Dan