[MD] Doug Renselle & Language

[Krimel]

[Matt]
I wasn't playing too close attention to Krimel and Magnus' discussion, 
but it appeared as if Krimel was lobbying on the side of common 
language and Magnus on the side technical community.  But when 
you put the point in terms of dynamics between these two things, I'm 
not sure either Krimel or Magnus would disagree, just perhaps in 
where the energy should now be applied.  Maybe.

[Krimel]
My point, restated goes something like this. The MoQ as I read it was never
aimed at a technical audience of any kind. It was a mass marketed attempt to
raise a few philosophical issues. Turning it into a formal system with
technical jargon seems at odds with that. 

I have repeated complained about, for example, Pirsig's choice of the term
Quality. He uses it to mark the undefined but in so doing he uses a term
loaded with denotations and connotations which we are supposed to set aside.
But we don't; we can't. So in effect the term has a special technical
meaning within the MoQ but the net effect is mere ambiguity.

The term "dynamic" fairs much worse, especially in the hands of many of
Pirsig's interpreters. The whole AWGI school seems to think the term means
something wonderful and magical. It is always something "good" or "better",
something to relish like serendipitous snatches of melody floating through
an open window and arresting our steps. But in common usage "dynamic" means
fluid and changing, something unpredictable and often disastrous. Here I
think the common usage is far more accurate than the imagined technical
meaning.

But the larger issue is the problem of developing a metaphysics of the
undefined rooted in precise technical meanings. There is something creepily
oxymoronic in that.