[MD] Decision

[Mary]

[Matt] 
> However, what is this "line"?  What actions are we talking
> about?  Is nobody reading the junk I wrote?  I'm saying that
> blaspheming against intellectual integrity doesn't to me seem
> easily posed as a criterion with which we can lay down a rule
> with which to kick people out.  For the lifespan of Milton-Mill
> life of free inquiry, the assumption has been that the best
> way to keep inquiry free and shuck falsity from truth is to
> keep the _structure_ wide and clear from dogma and let the
> inquirers/warriors fight it out.  As Rorty said, "take care of
> freedom, and truth will take care of itself."  I'm not just
> spouting moralistic propaganda, I'm talking about practical,
> structural bits of wisdom of how to best assure that truth is
> what comes out from an institution.  
...
What is this line?  What happens when the
> next person crosses it?  We blast more emails about how wrong
> they are?  That's what we've always done, and the only thing
> to do without making structural changes to the rules of the
> game.
> 

[Mary]
Hi Matt and all,

The line Bo crossed violated the cult of celebrity.  

The inherent problem this forum has always had is that we are discussing the
works of a living author.  It's nobody's fault.  We admire and respect him
or we wouldn't be here, but the flip side is that we self-censor as a
legitimate form of respect at the expense of potential Intellectual Level
advancement; and, though we are often rude and aggressive with each other,
no one wants to be that way with him.  Not even me.  This places a limit on
just how open and honest the discussion can really ever be. 

If you place yourself in mine and Bo's and Platt's shoes for a moment, here
is what you would see:  From our perspective, Pirsig chose to reverse
everything he wrote in two books with a comment in Lila's Child.  There is
no shame in this, but the group wants to deny that any such reversal ever
took place, fearing, I guess, that if they admitted that Pirsig reversed
himself that would somehow diminish his stature or make him seem indecisive.
It's an ugly sight to see.  IMO this is a textbook case of the Social Level
overpowering the Intellectual.  Who knows?  Maybe that's the right thing to
do?  

No one seems to see this, nor is it realized that had Pirsig instead said
that Bo's interpretation was correct, Bo would be on a holy pedestal with
this same group of people!  I think both positions are equally bad -
condemning Bo or praising him because either would be done for the wrong
reason, and I believe you can see exactly what I mean here.  The value of a
concept should not be judged by who put it forward or who disagrees, but
should be judged on merit alone.     

Pirsig himself offers some advice:

You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one
is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know
it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to
political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's
always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.
- ZMM Chapter 13

And here are the parting words of Gavin.  Most people don't bother to
explain why they quit participating.  He was doing us a favor:

[Gav]
more division and blame and hatred is (obviously?) not the answer. but well
i guess that ain't so obvious...

so for the time being it is adieu and adios and fare thee well. 
i have become disenamoured of the list of late....i don't like the tenor -
the intolerance, the arrogance, the cult of reason. i can't seem to do
anything about it by writing so maybe my resignation will have a more
salutary effect.

Peace,
Mary the iconoclast