[MD] Idealistic static value patterns

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Tuukka,

I haven't the time to reply fully yet, but as I scanned the thoughtful 
posts you sent, I wanted to clarify one thing quickly so no one 
mistakes what I meant.

Matt said:
(Whether or not this particular heresy gets me thrown out of the 
Church of Pirsig is something I disagree about with other disciples.  I 
can't see that Pirsig would throw me out for it.)

Tuukka said:
Has someone said you should be thrown out?

Matt:
However you took my comment, I have to clarify--for everyone 
because of my own history and the history of the MD--that I was not 
speaking about the MD as an instrument of discussion, but about this 
nebulous category called "being a Pirsigian."

Since the MoQ Discussion Group, hosted by moq.org and run by 
Horse, is a practical institution aimed at housing respectful 
conversation that aims at honest dealings of opinion, Horse has from 
time to time thought it prudent to step in and exercise his authority 
and prerogative to ban people from the listserve.  I wasn't speaking 
of this.

I was, rather, speaking of the prerogative of people who self-identify 
in a conceptual grouping of some kind to revoke the license of others 
who also _want_ to identify in that group, but have displayed some 
kind of activity that the revoker thinks is impermissible for such 
identification.  Three examples might be, "I'm a Pirsigian," "I'm a 
pragmatist," and "I'm a Democrat."   If we think of the first two on 
analogy with the last, we can get an idea of what I mean.  For if a 
self-identified American Democrat always votes for the Republican 
party in elections, what kind of Democrat is he?  Say he's a politician 
and always votes in the direction the Republican party votes--then the 
Democratic party would likely take steps to revoke his ability to take 
advantage of things such identification gets him (like party funds; for 
example, they might run an "actual" Democrat against him in his 
primary election).  Political party membership, when you get down to 
it, is a lot more nebulous in this kind of revocation, but still, there's a 
clearer angle on there being an authority-structure that carries out 
punishment for crossing a line.  However, identifying in an intellectual 
tradition, or as a follower of a certain philosopher, is a lot more 
nebulous than even this.  There is no determinate authority to kick 
someone out (and what's the "out" in this case anyways?).  However, 
the idea is that should a conflict like this arise, the revoker tries to 
argue that the illegitimate self-identifier shouldn't be taken seriously 
as a mouthpiece for the group both identify with.  That's how a 
conceptual group manages itself over time (in very broad outline, 
and from my own philosophical perspective).

So, in my little parenthetical, I was merely making light of the fact 
that some participants in the MD have made claims that, in these 
terms I've specified, I should have my charter as a Pirsigian revoked.  
Dave Buchanan is one, but merely, I think, the most outspoken.  I'm 
not trying to open the case, but it is rooted in the claim that the parts 
of Pirsig I show distaste for, if you will, are central to Pirsig's 
philosophical program in such a way that to not want to defend them 
would be to abdicate what Pirsig is, centrally, as a philosopher with a 
philosophical position.  This is a perfectly legitimate claim on Dave's 
part.  We just disagree over the details (specifically, about what is 
central to Pirsig).  (It's also part of a larger struggle over the 
philosophical tradition known as "pragmatism," as Dave wants to 
follow Pirsig in including Pirsig in it, but also exclude another of my 
philosophical heroes, Richard Rorty, who self-identifies as a 
pragmatist, though a large enough sector of pragmatists wish to 
revoke his charter.)

Further, I should own up to the fact that I have a penchant for 
inflaming this situation with the kind of rhetoric in the parenthetical.  I 
once, somewhat infamously, wrote that I was, "with heavy heart, 
relinquishing my place in the sanctuary" in a piece called "Confessions 
of a Fallen Priest."  As should be plain from the parenthetical, I've 
changed my mind somewhat.  (Though some would object to the 
analogy entirely.)  I don't deny that there are things in Pirsig's texts 
that I'm suspicious of, but I don't think those suspicions are beyond 
the pale.  "Heresy" is rooted in the Greek word for "choice," and grew 
out of the notion of "dogma" (the Greek word for "opinion") as it 
solidified in Catholic theological practice.  So I'd like to own to the fact 
that I do self-consciously choose what I want and don't want from 
other people's philosophies for my own, but I'd still like to think that 
there is a center that I'm not violating in some of them.

Matt