[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

Hi Horse,
I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this with me.  I have
provided some clarifications below.
Mark

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> Hi Mark
>
> On 05/12/2010 19:00, 118 wrote:
>>
>> [Mark previously]
I am not sure if compartmentalizing each of our views into a category is
>> useful or even relevant.  If you want to create an MOQ school and an
>> anti-MOQ school, then I would have to say that I belong to the MOQ and you
>> are anti-MOQ.
>[Horse]
> Well given that most of your comments in our recent exchange are completely
> opposed to what Pirsig has said then this would seem to be yet another case
> of your up-is-down view. I have stuck close to the text, spirit and message
> of Pirsigs MoQ, whilst you have opposed almost everything that Pirsig has
> stated and yet I am anti-MoQ and you are MoQ. This is what I am coming to
> expect in having a conversation with you.

[Mark]
With all due respect, Horse, you started the name calling by claiming
that I did not follow the MOQ as it was supposed to be.  Now I could
be equally dismissive and state that this is what I am coming to
expect from you.  But I won't go there because it would not add much
to the discussion and make it deteriorate into the typical MOQ
blather.

So, tell me, what did Pirsig say?  As I recall he placed Quality above
Truth.  By stating that I have an upside-down view, you are placing
Truth above Quality.  I think this is obvious.  Pirsig provides some
depictions of Quality, but he would be the first to say that they are
analogies and not to be taken literally.  I do not understand why some
are trying to force a rigid structure on MOQ.  This was not the
intention as described by the antagonism towards false notions of
Plato in ZMM.  I do not see how you can see it otherwise.  The spirit
of Quality is exactly against what you are trying to do.

> The problem that I see, is that what you are doing is producing a
> philosophical position that is based on the MoQ in the same way that, for
> instance, the film 'I, Robot' was based on the story by Isaac Asimov. The
> name is the same and there are one or two characters from the story still
> present in the film, but there the resemblance ends.
> You have said in the past that you are anti-authority, so are you opposing
> Pirsig because he is the authority on his own MoQ? It would certainly appear
> that this is the case.

[Mark]
I could easily put you into an analogy that would make you look
somewhat foolish, but I will not do that.  I will stick to logic.  I
am supporting Pirsig with all my heart.  These structures that you are
creating are the opposition.  Again, I do not see how you can proclaim
a truth concerning Quality.  This is not in the spirit of Quality.
>
>> You have created an intellectual structure that you claim is the Truth of
>> Quality.
>
> I have made no such claim - you may be inferring this but it is certainly
> not a claim I have made. I have merely re-stated what Robert Pirsig has said
> in his texts. No more and no less. If you have a problem it is with Pirsig
> and not with me. But this is fairly apparent from what you have been saying.
> I generally keep very close to Pirsigs original ideas as I think they are
> excellent and I have yet to see that many deviations that are better than
> the original.

[Mark]
What Pirsig presents in his texts are analogies.  This is clear from
ZMM when he was closer to his awakening into Quality.  You are using
Pirsig's words as if they are proclaiming some kind of truth.  This is
the wrong approach, such is the Western approach that we are trying to
get away from.  Pirsig's original ideas are presented by Phaedrus in
ZMM.  It was these revelations that pulled the rug right out from
under him.  I followed a similar path for a while, but had a number of
other books that I could subscribe to as well that were along the same
line.  It was an Eastern approach that Pirsig was trying for, that is
why he uses Zen in the title.  I am not deviating from Pirsig.  In
fact, I am staying closer to the original intent of Quality.  I don't
subscribe to this structure as if it were something true.  It simply
has Quality.
>
>> This is Platonism and is what Phaedrus was fighting against.  You take
>> this Truth and then try to fit everything within it making Quality
>> subservient to Truth.
>
> As I said, I am merely restating Pirsig's view of Quality as laid out in his
> books and comments. But again you are making inferences and, apparently,
> constructing strawmen.

[Mark]
Well, Horse, this appears to me to be the stance that a lot of
supporters of MOQ use.  If you are just following orders from the
text, how does MOQ advance?  I have not interest in construing
strawmen.  I am stating Quality the way I have seen it for 25 years.
Way before Lila.  Lila is an analogy.  If you want to create some kind
of structure from the top down, then go ahead.  Such a thing is
Platonism; some truth that we are trying to fit into.  This is exactly
what Quality was against.
>
>> This is classical Western thinking, and something we are trying to change.
>
> Pirsig is attempting to expand rationality with the MoQ. You appear to be
> trying to change it into something it is not.

[Mark]
How can you say that?  What I have presented is rational.  I think it
is you that is changing Quality into something that it is not.
Remember that Pirsig has to go back to the Sophists to find his
answer.  This was before modern science, before modern psychology,
before there was any understanding of biology, or any study of
sociology except for maybe a few books.
>
>> If the MOQ continues this way, it will become yet another Western
>> philosophy and there will be no change.
>
> If you have your way the MoQ will disappear into obscurity because it will
> have little support and less acceptance. I also don't believe it will be
> just another Western philosophy as it opposes many of the current
> philosophical positions that exist. There's also the problem, with your
> statement, that it was primarily intended for a western audience - but with
> many subtle twists.

[Mark]
I understand the need for acceptance.  This is why we try to bridge it
with other paradigms such as those which come from physics, biology,
sociology, philosophy, and common sense.  The worst thing to happen
would be that MOQ is simply engulfed by Western Philosophy as another
variation.  The basic philosophy that you are proposing is a top down
control, this is Western.  Eastern philosophies are based on growth
and change.  You have to admit that Quality is a very different way of
looking at things, that goes against much in Western Philosophy.  If
we make it reasonable, people will come.  Right now this forum is more
preoccupied with bringing in recent Western Philosophers than going
back to the Sophists.  This is a mistake in my opinion.
>
>> I am not sure if I am getting through to you, but I am happy to keep
>> discussing it from this viewpoint.
>
> You mean your viewpoint which is at odds with Pirsigs viewpoint as far as I
> can see.

[Mark]
I read ZMM many times, I have a feel for his viewpoint, especially
when he became incapacitated.  Pirsig is a smart guy, it had to take a
lot for him to lose all meaning in the world.  This is what became the
Quality approach.  It is not just an extension of our philosophy as it
stands.  I cannot emphasize this enough.  It is a completely different
perspective, you cannot look at it though the traditional Western
lens.
>
>> I think everybody's input is valuable since this is a difficult subject,
>> one of spiritual
>> rationalism.
>
> But you oppose and obfuscate any other viewpoint but your own - hence you
> don't value any other viewpoint but your own. This is what is difficult.
>
>> I do not think we are quite ready to start forming different schools like
>> the Sophists did quite yet.  Such a thing would be destructive and not
>> worthy of Quality.
>
> Then why do you insist on taking the MoQ and changing it until it no longer
> resembles anything that Pirsig constructed in the first place.

[Mark]
I think I have explained what I have been doing above.  I am staying
true to what Pirsig went through and creating a construction to bring
people in, it is not dogma.

Thank you for your patience.  This is a difficult subject.  One cannot
simply step into it by following some sentences.  It takes a radical
change in viewpoint.  There is a break which takes it away from
traditional logic.  Pirsig has done his best to try to get others
there with his analogies.  I like the notion of spiritual rationality;
this would be a different kind of rationality.  In the late '70s there
were many people who got it.  It is experiential not necessarily a
logical progression of ideas.

I hope my tone is not taken wrongly.  I am very passionate about this,
and it may shine through in the wrong way.  How about if we get away
from the generalities and get into some details?  Quality is more like
music than it is about logic.  I can not logically state why I like
certain types of music, I cannot encase that experience into some kind
of structure of control.  Music is growth.

Much appreciated,
Mark
> --
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>