[MD] Interpretive Legitimacy

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Mary]
That would be fun for me, but the bigger question you pose is deeper 
as it relates to how we react to each other here in the MD.

[Arlo]
Its interesting to note that if you really look at the most "heated" 
exchanges in the MD, they nearly always are not about substantive 
issues but about this idea of "interpretative legitimacy". Exchanges 
over substance tend to be much more civil, and I think this is 
because there is at the least general acceptance of a foundation, and 
it is THAT foundation from which I think that clarity bears evolution.

[Mary]
The fun is in the disagreement, is it not?

[Arlo]
Most definitely, and moreso it is out of disagreement that our ideas 
evolve, or strengthen. We seek disagreement not entirely because we 
are curmudgeons who enjoy verbal jousts, but because we have learned 
that in the arena of disagreement is where ideas truly evolve. If 
everyone agreed with everyone else, this forum would not last, or 
it'd become a social fan club, or something like that. Disagreement, 
in other words, is not only healthy it is necessary!

And, at the risk of being repetitive, it is precisely why I said that 
if Pirsig's ideas are to genuinely evolve, it will NOT be in the 
morass of posturing for interpretative legitimacy, but through 
disagreements with the author that foster the develop of better 
ideas, or better ways to think about a metaphysics of Quality.

[Mary]
As I said to Dan, I don't personally need to legitimize my ideas by 
insisting they are exactly or entirely from the celebrity, Pirsig.  I 
do, however, feel
the real need to give him credit for them.  I did not arrive at my 
conclusions without Pirsig's influence.

[Arlo]
Of course not. It'd be hard for me to say that "the social and 
intellectual levels are better viewed as containing certain non-human 
patterns" without acknowledging Pirsig's insights into formulating 
the levels in the first place, and my personal ideas here are, I 
think, a relatively small part of Pirsig's overall metaphysics. I am 
not coming up with something entirely new, I am merely disagreeing 
with this particular part of his ideas.

And moreso than this, my ideas about my disagreement are also largely 
influenced by Tomasello and Hofstadter (among others). We arrive at 
conclusions, as you say, through the great number of ideas we've 
encountered and constructed over our lives.

[Mary]
It would be dishonest of me to insist that I thought up Intellectual 
Level = SOM all by myself.

[Arlo]
Well, "all by myself" makes my inner constructivist wince. No, no one 
thinks in a vacuum. We all think within the rich social tapestry and 
historical dialogue we are part of. So while you may not want to 
think you came up with this idea all by yourself, you should 
certainly see that it was not entirely Pirsig either.

[Mary]
The fight you and they seem to want to have with me is always 
predicated on the rejection of my idea first off.

[Arlo]
I don't think this is the case at all. What is "rejected" is the bid 
for interpretative legitimacy, in this case that this particular idea 
was "what Pirsig really meant to say". I've yet to see an argument 
that would make me think constraining the intellectual level in this 
way has any value. But if that idea holds value for you, why would I 
care to destroy it? But what I do care about, and what we should care 
about, is that Pirsig's ideas differ from yours in this regard, and 
saying that he really meant to say what you want him to have said is 
unacceptable.

Again, consider that if I started constant posts about how Pirsig 
"really meant" to include non-human patterns in the S/I levels; that 
Pirsig's comments that he thinks otherwise only evidence that Pirsig 
is too stupid to know what he meant, that he cannot be counted on to 
be an expert on his own ideas.

[Mary]
Just as you say the Social Level is not about humanity only, I 
imagine you came by that idea from your reading of Pirsig.  My 
position is exactly the same.

[Arlo]
I came by this idea through disagreeing with Pirsig, and through my 
own personal historical repertoire of experience (books, movies, 
conversations, etc.). Obviously its built upon (or within) agreement 
with Pirsig's overall foundation, but attributing the idea to him is wrong.

[Mary]
What I find problematic has to do with the discrepancies I see 
between what Pirsig said in ZMM and Lila and what he said much later 
on to Mr. Turner and others.  In my opinion, he seems to be renieging 
on his primary insights in a number of ways.

[Arlo]
I think in cases where he has attempted to clarify his ideas we 
should accept this for exactly what it is, a man trying to explain 
what he meant. When you start dismissing this, you are no longer 
having a genuine dialogue, you are attempting to attribute ulterior 
motives to explain why your interpretative legitimacy should 
overwrite what the author says.

And so what if what you see as discrepancies are the result of a 
disagreement you have over his conclusions. You thought he meant one 
thing, he disagreed, and so this becomes the ground of disagreement 
over which idea, yours or his, has more value.

To be honest, I admit to a little disappointment of his clarification 
about reserving the S/I levels for humans only. To the best of my 
recollection, that stance isn't in LILA (or ZMM), and so reading it 
angered me a bit. But this is healthy, and I accept that ultimately 
my ideas are in disagreement with his.

[Mary]
Any speculation on my part is unfair to Mr. Pirsig no matter how 
unfair to me I might think his later statements to be.  Does that 
make sense?  What would you think if you were me?

[Arlo]
I think we have a fairly large disagreement on the value of 
disagreement. Personally, I can't see how disagreeing with Pirsig 
would be matter to the value with which you hold your ideas. I was 
disappointed too, as I just mentioned, but oh well, life goes on, 
we'll never find anyone that we agree with entirely.

[Mary]
I do not know who you are talking about here.  I presume it must be 
me since you and I are talking, but this is not what I think at all.

[Arlo]
It was not directed at you, but an aside about the exchanges I've had 
with others on the list who believe that any added dialogue with 
Pirsig would somehow hinder or harm the evolution of his ideas. Even 
Pirsig expressed such an idea with his "papul bull" comment, and I 
think such a cop out is really nothing but "bull".

[Mary]
I even went so far as to transcribe his "MoQ and Art" monologue for 
the pleasure of the entire MD a few months ago.

[Arlo]
I think I missed this, could you send me copy offlist?

[Mary]
I would love nothing so much as to check my email some day and find 
Pirsig at someemailprovider.com posting replies!  What an orgasmic dream 
that would be for all of us!  Could somebody talk to him about it?

[Arlo]
I'm sure he's aware, but whether its worrying about "papal bulls" or 
just enjoying his retirement, I don't think he's going to be too 
involved. I am sure he does speak (however frequently I do not know) 
to some on this list, and I think his continuing to do so is the best 
we can hope for. He has alluded (if I recall) to a large number of 
unpublished notes and things that will probably become available 
after his death, so I imagine that giving nothing else, we may have 
these one day to add some insight into his ideas.

[Mary]
His books opened a Pandora's box for each of us. He could not 
possibly be expected to have anticipated every possible reaction to 
his work.  Mine is one that he apparently disagrees with. So be it.

[Arlo]
Well, yeah, this is precisely what I was saying above. So what if he 
disagrees with something. I've yet to meet a person with whom I have 
no disagreement at all. The value of ideas is what ultimately 
matters, and without disagreement there really is no differing values 
to compete, is there?