[MD] The hard question.

[david buchanan]

Arlo said to Mark:

...It is odd to suggest that what we think of as "Pirsig's ideas" will be completely different at some latter time, unless the implication is now that we are generally confused. This would be another way of saying, "we will learn that what he meant is different than what we think it is now". I see no evidence of this, as his [Pirsig's] involvement with Ant and others suggests that they do understand his ideas correctly. 



dmb says:

I think it's worse than odd. The overall thrust of the defense mounted by Mark, Marsha and others is to generally undermine the very idea that one can be right or wrong about Pirsig's work. When their understanding of the MOQ is criticized the response usually involves some self-aggrandizing claim about being above or beyond mere intellectual quality. This almost always includes some kind of dismissal or denigration of intellectual values. Basic intellectual standards - proper use of terms, logical consistency, coherence, clarity and accuracy - are insulted as oppressive and authoritarian demands. Disrespect for these standards often goes hand-in-hand with some self-congratulatory claims about how mystically mindful they are or what awesome revolutionary thinkers they are. They can barely cobble together a coherent sentence but that because they're just way too important to bother with little things like making sense. 

This discussion group is probably one of the luckiest things that could happen. Unlike most other philosophers, Pirsig is still around to answer questions AND we practically have direct access to the author. We have the years of work that Ant did and his direct correspondence with Pirsig, all of which was tried and tested by academic standards. We have Dan's book, chock full of comments from the author. David Granger's Doctoral Thesis on Pirsig and Dewey has been published and I'll even mention my own Master's Thesis on Pirsig and James. This is not to say that there is only one right way to think about Pirsig's ideas, of course, but for the most part we simply don't have to wonder what he meant and his ideas are now officially in circulation within the academic world. They are now a public property with a public meaning about which ONE CAN BE RIGHT or WRONG. This is something to celebrate, not dismiss or denigrate! Mark's attitude toward Ant is totally outrageous, even delusional, and ought not be taken seriously. Can you smell the grandiosity and paranoia in these kinds of defenses, or is just me?