[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ron]
That is exactly my point, but with the subjectmatter, this process in 
it self, it makes any definite structure a bit ambiguos, you can't 
build a house with two boards but you can create an understanding 
about finding the best ways in which to build "a" house not any house 
in particular, thats what makes this so difficult a venture.

[Arlo]
This is a good point. Please don't think I am justifying an 
authoritative orthodoxy, I am only saying that dialogic progression 
depends on the clarity of what the other person is saying. In the 
end, however, it is all just "one person talking at one particular 
point in time" (although this metaphor misses that this person is 
talking *to* someone, and responding *to* someone as well...)

Its like "pragmatism", there is no "one house" that is right, but the 
discussions between competing ideas depend on each side clearly 
articulating where they are, even if it is "just for now". But it is 
a tough balance, building a "Church of Reason" that is not confused 
with the brick and mortar buildings where it, at times, resides.

[Ron]
Any static example, would be taken up as THE way to build houses, 
which is missing the point.

[Arlo]
I guess what I am saying is that, yes, it is all just fingers 
pointing at the moon, but to determine the value of that "pointing" 
one has to understand where/why/how that finger points. It is not to 
say, "Pirsig said so so it must be right", but rather, "Ah, now I see 
how his finger is pointing, and can determine the value I place in 
that, or when I think that finger could be positioned better, etc.".

There is a difference, I believe, between a papal bull and simply 
saying "this is what *I* meant". Sure, eventually, a finger can only 
point so far. Eventually, the onus of the gaze is upon the gazer.

[Ron]
AH,that is my point, anti-elitism is a brand of elitism, we are so 
entrenched in our own ideas about the MoQ that we fail to get the 
main point of it that. Rigid rejection is the problem, it blinds.

[Arlo]
A friend of mine once said, the first step to learning is admitting 
you are deficient. Not to get all nerdly, but Data is Star Trek 
refers to a similar idea, "The most elementary and valuable statement 
in science, the beginning of wisdom, is "I do not know"."

[Ron]
In this way authoritative mandates, even Quality ones, go against the 
grain of what Bob is trying to accomplish. Think for thy self. 
Radical inquirey. Openess of thought.

[Arlo]
The paradox is that he has already written an "authoritative 
mandate". He could have just written the three words "think for 
yourself" if he thought his other ideas had little value. But again, 
I take your point, we do need caution around "papal bulls", but I 
also think ambiguity does not serve a dialogue well, instead 
everything more or less degenerates into disharmonic voices.