[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[Arlo Bensinger]

[DMB]
Thanks Arlo. Sometimes I wonder if people see this situation the same 
way I see it. And you nailed it.

[Arlo]
I don't know if I understand the root problem here, but I suspect its 
relates back to the idea of "interpretative legitimacy". I continue 
to ask myself why it was impossible for Bo to simple say "Pirsig says 
that, I think this, my ideas are better, and here is why." It was a 
complete blindness to productive disagreement and dialogue, and 
instead evidence nothing but a need to have the "one true 
interpretation" of Pirsig, even going so far as to call Pirsig a 
"weak-interpreter" of his own ideas! So the hostility derived from 
people pointing out that SOL is not an "interpretation" of Pirsig, 
but a refutation, a disagreement, which in itself is fine and 
healthy, but when its only focus was on claiming to be "Pirsig's 
idea" led to the unending dialogue that Horse finally had to deal 
with. There is still an apparent need to avoid "disagreement" and 
have only "an interpretation", and you challenge this (rightly so) 
and so hence hostility.

This is why I responded cautiously to Mark's use of "interpretation", 
when he referred several times to my thoughts on non-human sociality 
as an "interpretation" of Pirsig. I think Pirsig was clear, and I 
don't try to coerce agreement where there is none. My ideas are a 
refutation of what Pirsig said. I would like to think that, given the 
opportunity to present this argument to Pirsig, he may change his 
position (this is how evolution occurs), but in the meantime trying 
to "prove" Pirsig "really meant" to include non-humans in the 
social-level, or that my "interpretation" of the social level is the 
correct one, is an unproductive, and frankly dishonest, use of time.

I also think this is fallout from the "Intellect=SOM" paradigm. You, 
the "evil, deluded, conniving, blind, acerdimic-SOMist", are taking 
the brunt of the animosity from a crowd that aggressively pursues an 
anti-intellectual agenda. I've said before that I think Bo's "SOL" 
had produced quite a strange lot of bedfellows, but the common theme 
is one where "intellect" is to be aggressively considered (in nearly 
every form) "the enemy". Where Pirsig pursued a path of expanding 
rationality, these folk seek to condemn it "in toto" (and if right 
now you are hearing the opening beats to Africa, then my work here is 
done), or at the least neuter it.

As I said before, I think Marsha does this out of a effort to make 
intellect subservient to the aesthetic, the code of art, and I think 
in many ways draws back to the romantic/classic rift in ZMM. From 
what I can tell, rather than resolve the conflict via integration (as 
Pirsig does), Marsha demotes intellect to "classic rationality", and 
elevates "romantic understanding" to the "code of art". You, then, 
are the "classic rationalist", stuck in the cold, grey, lifeless 
world of analyses and relationships and parts and components, and she 
is the "romantic artist" (often an integration with Lila), and so her 
understanding must be deeper than yours. When I read her responses to 
you, this makes perfect sense. YOU don't get it because you are 
classic square, a shallow intellectual concerned with hierarchies and 
analysis, but SHE gets it because she is the romantic artist who 
drums and paints and posts poetry.

She will say I am wrong, but re-read all your posts with her and tell 
me this doesn't fit the dialogue to the "T".