[MD] Idealistic static value patterns

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Matt,
as a sidenote, at least I'm learning to use Illustrator here. I barely 
knew what it was a month or two ago. Better take a little break from 
that now, though.

Hmm. Being a "Pirsigian" is, in my opinion, impossible in any highly 
coherent sense. Being a Pirsigian may imply some mystical understanding, 
as Pirsig managed to create extremely complicated works. He did make 
mistakes and what not, but obviously he was finely attuned to some sort 
of intuitive understanding of reality. To be a Pirsigian would be to 
incorporate not only Pirsig's achievements but also his mistakes, or in 
any case, what I perceive as mistakes. If someone still says he's done 
that and that's it's no mistake, I don't know what that means.

I have had quite a bit of discussions with Bo, and I have no idea 
whether it was good to ban him from MD or not. I'm active at Lila Squad 
and I think it's nice there are two different places for discussion. 
Maybe it would stifle innovation if everyone had to be at MD because 
there are no other places. I used to sympathise with Bo a lot, but 
nowadays I think I'm quite neutral to him. I don't know why exactly was 
he banned, so I can't evaluate whether the reasons were right.


> Matt said:
>
> 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).

Tuukka:
Such people are a cancer in any group. But they are simply making a 
logical fallacy known as the No true Scotsman. Wikipedia:

     Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
     Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
     Alice: Well, all /true/ Scotsmen like haggis.

> Matt said:
> 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.)

Tuukka:
Okay. I don't know what that's about. I figure that because I can take a 
logical, systematic approach towards this, I do not need to think about 
which group I belong to. Also, I think that if we are concerned of 
elevating Pirsig's personal authority, or his function as an icon or an 
archetype, we should approach him like I do - that is, in a way that 
disregards the social gaming and focuses on the philosophy. Being right 
is not even the point. I think it's nice when some other people than me 
are right, or when someone helps me in correcting my mistake.

I don't know about this social stuff so much. Of course we risk 
extinction. One day Pirsig will die, that's for sure. Then we may want 
to elect a pope of the MOQ. We may have a lot of power structures and 
authority over ideology. We may even create a peer-review process for 
MOQ publications which is independent of the academic discourse. That 
kind of stuff makes it easier for us to not get extinct.

It would resemble the early centuries of Christianity. The non-gnostics 
wiped out the gnostics to unify their doctrine. And more. The early 
Christians probably needed to unify their doctrine, because they were 
persecuted and needed a strong group mentality. But nowadays we have the 
internet, and our persecution is limited to exclusion from the academy, 
so things are different. So maybe we don't need the power structures. 
Maybe the transmission of information is so easy nowadays, that the 
winner will simply be the one who's right, and the social gaming is not 
needed.

I don't know about that, but I'm currently busy enough working on the 
core of what this philosophical venture is supposed to be. So I'd just 
harm myself by trying to participate in that game, and I don't even know 
how that should be done. "I'm an eclectic Pirsigian who is inclined to 
essentialism. Let's see how many there are of us, and then vote what is 
true." That would be silly.

> Matt said:
> 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.
>
>

Tuukka:
Well, you've certainly been the most useful person here, at least so far 
and from my point of view. I think it is heresy to believe one knows 
everything or is infallible, because it implicitly denies the existence 
of Dynamic Quality. I do not know who is a heretic, though, but that is 
certainly heresy, and you don't seem to do that.

-Tuukka