[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[118]

Hi Arlo,
Further discussion below.
Mark

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> [Arlo]
> When Pirsig says "Intellect!=SOM" I am not sure how anyone could
> "interpret" this to mean "Intellect=SOM". There are always, in discourse,
> matters where clarity is needed, and we can discuss them, but the GOAL of
> that discussion is to solidify what was said so that a proper response
> (agreement or disagreement) can be offered.
>

[Mark]
Yes, I agree.  It seems this whole topic has undergone much scrutiny so my
guess it that people interpret it differently.  I am simply looking at
history here and making a judgment.

>
> [Arlo]

If I say "I interpret Pirsig to mean that trees are intellectual patterns" I
> would hope this would be seen as incorrect and, if I chose to pursue it,
> instead a different metaphysics I am proposing out of disagreement with
> Pirsig. You can't use "interpretation" to justify that anything you want to
> believe an author said was said simply because say that's my
> "interpretation". At that point, everything becomes meaningless, and our
> "interpretations" become simply projections of what we want other people to
> have said.
>

[Mark]
No, that is not how I am using it.  What I am saying that without further
explanation, a quote is left hanging, especially since we are only providing
text bites in this forum.  If we were in a classroom, this would be
different.  I am with you that we need agreement to build MOQ.

>
>
> [Arlo]
> Well that makes it cumbersome, I'd personally prefer we drop "The MOQ"
> altogether and talk about Pirsig's ideas and James' ideas and your ideas and
> my ideas. We don't talk about "The Pragmatism" or "The Idealism", we talk
> about philosophers and their ideas and when we agree and when we disagree.
>

[Mark]
I would prefer to talk about our own ideas, and if necessary use Pirsig or
James as examples of where such ideas came from.  This whole notion that if
we use one of James' quotes it makes it more believable is not always proper
especially if one does not relate it to one's own ideas, it's kind of like a
vacuum.  MOQ is new, there are two books that I have access to.  If we limit
ourselves to that, we go nowhere.  I have bigger ideas.

>
>  [Mark before]
> Just for the record, MOQ, like Zen, is an ART.
>
> [Arlo]
> I think the central theme of ZMM was that ART is "everyday, lived
> experience" (with a nod to Granger). "Art" is a high quality response to
> experience. Whether it is building rotisseries, repairing motorcycles,
> painting a landscape, or writing Haiku.
>

[Mark]
Yes, one can make an art out of anything.  If you are sitting in a cubicle,
make the most out of it, produce some Quality, if only for yourself.  There
is way too much complaining in the U.S. now.  Everybody wants to get rich by
being a victim, that is not Quality! (but I digress, sorry for the outburst,
it came from my pre-intellectual awareness).

>
> [Mark before]
> 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well I think we can appreciate these things aesthetically, but that
> includes (in my estimation) a synthesis of the romantic and classical
> understandings. I can enjoy chocolate by virtue solely of its pleasurable
> taste, but I can also admire the art that goes into the creation of
> chocolate, even though such a process is based on procedures and
> experimentation and hierarchies etc.
>

[Mark]
Like I said, the romantic and classical split is one of many ways to
describe it. Don't get stuck there.

>
> 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
>