[MD] Bitterness over Betterness

[John Carl]

Dave and Arlo and any interested,


> 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.


John:

I think Arlo agrees, dave, but I think he just wants to clarify these two
different modes with some distinct labeling.  Thus his "wider conversation"
would not be called "the MoQ", he'd term it "Qualityism".  I don't agree
that this is the best approach, but I do agree that he has a good point and
that the clarification of an ambiguity is usually a good thing.


> 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.


John:

I'll take your word on that one, dave.  Because when it comes to "really,
really stupid", you are one of the greatest authorities in my book.

Unfortunately, you don't understand what I was saying.  Rejecting the
author's authority isn't the issue - reflexively relying upon static
authority without thinking is.  Using no supporting argumentation except
"Pirsig sez" is an invalid philosophical ploy.  But alas, I'm sure this
makes no sense to you.



> 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?



John:  What else would I be concerned with?  It's easy to grasp what Pirsig
said - all you have to do is be able to read.  But grasping whether he was
right means actually understanding and interpreting - strenuous work, I
guess, for those who are too busy to actually engage.