[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[John Carl]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [John]
> What Arlo characterized as  A "very accurate read of Pirsig" is to my
> thinking, way too static.
>
> [Arlo]
> Static? Trying to understand what the man said is "too static"?? Look,
> again, I am not talking about "no dissent", I am saying "dissent is only
> possible against a clear backdrop".
>
> The point is that if we are trying to understand what Pirsig "meant", and
> Pirsig said that DMB accurately represents this in this forum, then why the
> hostility and glee over his departure?



Ok, first I didn't notice any hostile glee.  A bit perhaps.  I got some in
my in box, off list, but I didn't agree with it.  And I don't think Marsha's
response and Platt's "ditto" were that way.  I read it more as recognition
of a sad fact.  We all wish Dave COULD "take it" as well as he could dish it
out.   Dave himself included, I'm sure.

As for what remains, you have to expect a little munchkin singing when the
wicked witch is dead.

And at the same time, there is probably a  need for munchkin repression here
and there.  It's a tough task that somebody has to take on.  Even if it
turns you into a wicked witch.

As far as "trying to understand what Pirsig meant", I don't see that as the
main focus of this place.  It's not for me, anyway.  I see the focus as
taking what Pirsig meant and applying it to our own lives and evolving a
comprehensive metaphysics that is capable of continuing to evolve after all
of us are gone.

But maybe that is what you mean, by "what Pirsig meant".



> And again, "trying to understand what Pirsig meant" is not a call for
> unassailable orthodoxy. Its a way of moving the dialogue forward, so that
> "babble" is not all we are left with. Yes, as I said to Ron, this is just
> one man talking at one point in time, one finger pointing at the moon, and
> Pirsig would want it treated as such. But I hardly think that means that
> trying to understand what he is actually saying is "static".
>

Well I beg to disagree.  Trying to understand what anybody said at one point
in time is an effort to assimilate  static doctrine.  Besides, Pirsig wasn't
some unintelligible academic.  He's pretty easy to understand if you ask me.
  Working out the implications of what he said is fairly mind-blowing and
I'd characterize our task that way rather than  what Dave fell back upon,
the long exact quoting of entire passages from books I'd already read three
and four and five times through.




> [John]
> However you make a good point; Disharmony is an important stage, but not a
> goal or end result.
>
> [Arlo]
> Yeah, and again I am not positing "harmony" as "everyone agrees" or
> "everyone bows to the papal bull". Harmony, in this case to me, refers to a
> progression owing to the latching (static) of insights (dynamic). And I
> doubt DMB would ever say that its all about a papal bull, nor that we should
> accept Bob's word as an orthodoxical decree.


Maybe Dave wouldn't say it, but he sure DID it time and again.



> But I think he may agree that for evolution to occur, there must be a clear
> state of non-ambiguity about what Pirsig "meant" and where others have
> "extended" or "corrected" him.

I have a very clear idea of what Peirce was saying, and this does not make
> his words orthodoxical, but it provides a solid base from which I can
> extend, critique, examine or even refute what he said. And if I said "Peirce
> was talking about goldfish and daffodils", I would very much an "expert" on
> his writings to correct me. And I'd be cool with that.
>
>
I just don't see it taking that much expertise to understand ZAMM and Lila,
is all.



> This has gotten a bit away from my only intended point, and that is simply
> that seeing glee over DMBs departure, given that he had Pirsig's
> endorsement, very sad in a forum devoted to Pirsig's ideas.
>


An endorsement is an opportunity to take the energy provided and run with
it, to do something creative with it, not bask in the glow of endorsement
and beat munchkins over the head with.  It seems a classic ego trap, if you
ask me.




> [John]
> "But all the students with whom I most identify are *failing!"*
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, DMB certainly "failed" here, didn't he?
>
>
Maybe.  He was tremendously successful at illustrating the dangers of
falling into a static ego trap.  I appreciate his lesson in that regard.
 Highly illuminating.

I will tell you something that I haven't mentioned before, about the day he
walked away.  We were in the middle of a dialogue at the time, and I had
crafted a particulary nasty response in the dialogue (well, by my standard
anyway)  and some inner instinct made me hesitant to hit the send button.
 So I didn't.  For a good day or so.  But then, I figured that even though
it was a bit snarky, Dave obviously had a pretty tough hide from what I saw
between him and Krimel and so I figured he liked it that way.  So I sent it
next time I logged on, THEN checked my in box and saw his resignation.

That, was a very strange feeling.  We were talking about Deadwood and I felt
like an opposing gunfighter had  laid down his guns just as I walked from
around a corner and shot him.  It felt real unfair.

And to try and make up for it, I posted some explanation as I saw it, which
then later felt to me like saying words over his grave, patting the dirt
down good and solid.  All that, and I didn't even mean to really, it just
sorta happened.

Some think he will rise again.  It would be amazing, but I doubt it.  Dead
is one thing.  Buried another.