[MD] Bitterness over Betterness

[david buchanan]

John said:
Many philosophers have constructed systems which then take on independent life of their own.

Arlo replied:
No. They evolve as new voices are added, as voices disagree, agree, contextualize, critique, revision and reconstruct the ideas.  ..On this level "the MOQ" is akin to something like "pragmatism" or "relativity", it is a large field with many competing and contrasting ideas. You could say something like "Qualityism" instead.  But if "the MOQ" can never run contrary to Pirsig's ideas, then it will never "evolve", because you are defining "the MOQ" as simply the ideas expressed by Pirsig. If you change them, they are no longer Pirsig's ideas. This is what I meant when I said that different people here are using the term "the MOQ" to refer to different thing. One group uses it in a global sense, like "pragmatism", to refer to a growing body of ideas (which will naturally include disagreement), another group uses it to refer to specifically "just what Pirsig said".

dmb says:
I think I see what you're getting at, Arlo, but I'm not so sure I'd cut it up that way. I think that we can have the MOQ in the strict sense and a wider conversation about Pirsig's ideas. As a practical matter, we're just talking about the MOQ as it is presented in the original texts and then the subsequent texts that examine or otherwise use those original texts. We're talking about the public discourse and the topic of that discourse. Part of the conversation will almost certainly include disputes about the best way to interpret the original text, the best way to read or understand Pirsig's MOQ. And there might be some who aren't interested in that kind of debate, who only want to use some part of Pirsig's thought for their own purposes. That's allowed, of course, but hopefully such a thinker would be careful not to confuse anyone about where they depart and why. As I see it, saying the MOQ has taken on a life of it's own is really just a pretty way to describe this process, this wider discourse. But whatever camps or schools or debates might emerge, they'll all be about the MOQ to some extent, formed around the original text in some sense. The exact meaning and importance of the variations will be part of that wider conversation, no doubt. And hopefully, the MOQ will become a part of many, overlapping conversations. It could enter the discourse on pragmatism, Buddhism, East/West fusion, mysticism, and it could show up in Anthropology, the Art department and English teachers already use the hell out of it. That's how ideas live, right? They get out there and they get put to use. 


John said:
I know what Arlo is going to say to this one!  He's gonna fall back on authoritarianism. ...Trust a trained academic to follow certain patterns in thinking, every time. ...Since Pirsig invented the MoQ, only what he says is fully valid.


dmb says:
When it comes to the MOQ, Pirsig wrote the book. Literally. To reject the author's authority as authoritarianism is... well, I honestly can't think of a nice word for it. It's really, really stupid, John. When one is debating the meaning of a philosophy or philosopher, quoting text from an original author is not only common practice, it is considered to be the very best kind of evidence. Rejecting it as authoritarianism is like rejecting the "authority" of empirical evidence. Would you call an empiricist an authoritarian because he bowed down to the authority of experience? But according to history and dictionaries and stuff, empirical evidence and the scientific method were invented to oppose beliefs based on authority, which means beliefs based on church authorities, political authorities and the other traditional forms of social control. In fact, the whole Modern period is largely the story of the emergence of an independent science, an independent philosophy and an independent domain of art. It's the story of the intellect's breaking free from the church and from the political authorities. To use "authoritarian" to dismissively refer to academic debates is just about as wrong as it gets. Where and when has thought ever been more free and open? Are they NAZIs because you're supposed to get good grades and make sense when say stuff? Yea, it'll fall short if you hold it up to some heavenly ideal of the academy but come on, realistically, where on earth has there ever been such a variety of thought or so many conversations about so many things? Authoritarian compared to what? I think you've confusing two completely different kinds of authority. One is about guns and money. The other is about earned, demonstrable competence.


John said:
 For instance, everybody around here seems to think that the phenomena of "emotions" are biological. But the only real support for the position comes from "Pirsig said it, therefore I believe it."

dmb says:
I was convinced when I heard that James had asserted it long ago and that it was recently corroborated by the new brain imaging techniques that James never had. 
I think you're confusing two very different things here, John. If we want to know WHAT Pirsig said or thinks, we can present evidence by simply quoting the relevant part of his text. But if we want to know if Pirsig is RIGHT about what he said, quoting his text is useless and it couldn't count as evidence one way or the other. Isn't that obvious to everyone? Isn't that just basic logic? Of course you can't begin to ask the second question until you've pretty well settled the first one. You gotta know WHAT he said before you can test the truth of it, just as it would be with any other claim.