[MD] Hot stoves and those who sit on them

[Arlo Bensinger]

[John to Marsha]
But it raises interesting questions in my mind as to whether we as a 
group can decide things for ourselves, seeing freshly for ourselves 
what is good and what is not good, without appeals to authority figures.

[Arlo]
I think you're hitting the "philosophy/philosophology" distinction 
here, and its important. Pirsig referred back (in Baggini?) to the 
point in ZMM where the Chairman shouted "We are not here to learn 
what YOU think!", and this is an important part of Pirsig's 
"message", namely, to get to a point where you can answer the 
question "what do YOU think?"

This said, appeals to authority are helpful to act against 
reinventing the wheel every ten seconds. And in the finite amount of 
time we exist we can make it further if we at least have the 
advantage of continuing the dialogue (evolution?).

Appeals to authority are fine (IMO) when they are used to align one 
with, or bring light upon, what others have said before. They become 
problematic when they are used to provide carte blanche support 
(Pirsig said it, therefore it is true). Of course, in the maligned 
Academy, appeals to authority also derive from the capitalist notion 
of "intellectual property", a sort of "fee" for using someone else's 
"property".

So I do think the "goal" should always be "what do YOU think?", but 
along the way clarity and consistency are instilled in the dialogue 
by referencing where others have already beaten a path that you feel 
is precursive to what you "YOU think".

In other words, everything that is said is said in response to what 
has been said before, and in anticipation of what others may then say 
in response to you. Appeals to authority are one way to "mark" one's 
place in that historical dialogue (when used with care).