[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[118]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Mark]
> What me? Avoid disagreement?  All disagreements are based on
> interpretations.
>
> [Arlo]
> I think you're backing up "interpretations" here to the realm of
> "interpreting experience". So, sure, on this level our disagreements stem
> from different "interpretations" of experience.
>
> But the present context is not about this level, it is about whether or not
> one agrees with or disagrees with something Pirsig has stated. My ideas are
> not "an interpretation" of what he said, they are a refutation. According to
> Pirsig, for example "Intellect!=SOM". Saying "Intellect=SOM" is not an
> "interpretation", it is a disagreement and a refutation. Pirsig has said his
> ideas are "anti-theistic", saying "the MOQ is theistic" is not an
> "interpretation", but a disagreement and a refutation.
>
[Mark again]
Don't confuse what I say, with what you interpret I say.  If somebody told
me that Intellect does not equal SOM, I would say "what do you mean".  This
is simply an attempt to come to the same meaning or interpretation of the
concept.  Does that make sense?

>
> I feel like I am repeating myself, and hence not sure if I am explaining
> myself adequately. Do you see the difference above I am pointing towarsd?
>

[Mark again]
 I am not trying to argumentative, just trying to express myself in a way
which you can interpret.  I see the difference.  Such difference is that you
believe you know what Pirsig is saying and that everybody should see it in
the same way.  Life does not work that way.

>
> In any event, the impetus of "interpretation" is to avoid the charge of
> disagreement with the author. Hence we had Bo who claimed the SOL was not a
> disagreement he had with Pirsig (which is legitimate) but an
> "interpretation" where he could claim Pirsig was in agreement with him, or
> his ideas were Pirsig's. Obviously, Bo vocally disagreed with me, but I was
> not an authority he sought to provide "interpretive legitimacy". Pirsig
> was/is.
>

[Mark]
I am happy to disagree with Pirsig, and believe he took ZMM in some wrong
directions.  He does not own MOQ anymore than Kierkegaard or Satre owns
Existentialism.  Are you saying that Pirsig has the final word?

>
>  [Arlo]
>  So again, when I use the term "The MOQ..." I use it to refer to "Robert
> Pirsig" as this was the narrative device he employed, but I've tried to
> start using "Pirsig's MOQ" or "Pirsig's ideas" in place of this, the way
> we'd use "James' Pragmatism" to distinguish ideas from "Peirce's
> Pragmatism".
>
> [Mark]
OK, it's a deal, when you say The MOQ, you are talking about a subset of
MOQ.  I am OK with that.  I could still read Pirsig differently from you.
 There are contradictions between ZMM and Lila for example, even within
books.  There is also the use of pronouns such as described in my answer to
you in the Intellectual level which are left hanging.

>
>
> [Arlo]
> She may, and that would certainly explain her hostility. But I'd challenge
> her to provide any evidence that I (or DMB) attack "romantic understanding"
> in any way, or demean expressive poetry, dancing or painting, etc.
>
> Pirsig's desire in ZMM was to achieve a synthesis, an integration, of what
> he saw as two erroneously dichotomized aspects of being. He considered this
> to a "new spiritual rationality", a root expansion that would make these
> aspects integrated rather than antagonistic. If you think anything I've
> written is antagonistic of "romantic understanding", please let me know.
>

[Mark]
Well, I cannot speak for Marsha, only my interpretation of what I have read
from you and dmb.  Just for the record, MOQ, like Zen, is an ART.  This puts
it at a higher level than simple intellectual discourse..  The discourse and
rhetoric are simply tools used in the Art of MOQ.   I think Marsha may agree
with that.  But I am not concerned, she and I do not always see eye to eye,
and we are comfortable with that, at least I am.  We have more to agree on.


While ZMM professes a synthesis, it does so in a classical way.  There is no
way to describe the sense one gets from a drum beat.  I don't have a problem
with this, I just point this out so that you may understand me.  My guess is
that you like music and art, and the feeling of a fast car or beautiful
woman (Marsha, don't start now).  All romantic in my estimation, not
requiring the classical categorization of things like an instruction manual.

Regards,
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
>