[MF] R: the way forward for MoQ discussion lists

Paul Turner paul at turnerbc.co.uk
Mon Nov 7 04:33:27 PST 2005


Rick, Wim, all,

>#3 is the suggestion that Paul put forth and Matt and Wim ran with in
>various directions.  My fear about this version, separating "Pirsig" from
>"Criticism of Pirsig" is that it could easily degenerate in to a situation
>of "All dissenters should report to room-B"... We risk choking off DQ by
>sifting out the pro-pirsigs from the anti-pirsigs from the undecideds and
>the indifferents.   I realize that many have expressed their exacerbation
>with endless fighting and bickering MD (me among them) and this option
>would
>surely go a long way towards curing a lot of that, but at what price?  Of
>course the priests will be happier if they a nice, little, out of sight
>place to send the saints and the brujos when they get too bothersome (and
>heck, the saints and brujos might enjoy each other's company more than that
>of priests), but well, I think you see what I'm getting at by now.  Matt's
>vision of a "Pirsig History" vs. "Pirsig Philosophy" forum makes a lot more
>sense to me, but again, I think it will quickly degenerate into a situation
>where everyone is just telling everyone else that "they've misunderstood
>Pirsig" and "if that's what you believe than you should be over in the
>other
>forum.  Suddenly, everyone will be in "the other forum" and we'll be back
>to
>one big list.  This, right now, is my least favorite suggestion.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback.  I guess the consensus is that there
are better ways to restructure the forum and I largely agree with the
direction it seems to be going but I have a couple of comments about the
above anyway.  

It is interesting that Rick and Wim (and maybe others) would see a forum
which was encouraged to develop and clarify the MOQ without having to answer
a fundamental challenge and/or review an alternative metaphysics at every
turn as necessarily static, and, as a side note, why proponents occupying
such a forum are referred to (by Rick) as priests.  I guess the latter
suggestion is a partially tongue-in-cheek reference to the branding of some
of the MD members as being the inner sanctum of a religious cult, as well as
a nod to LILA.  As to the former suggestion, I think it implies that by
contrast to my suggestion the present MD, for example, is a great vehicle
for DQ because it allows all opinions into the fray at once.  Whilst this is
occasionally true, and despite the good fun that it often is, I think the
present MD is a better advert for chaos than for DQ.  I don't know but
perhaps limiting distraction so as to slowly "get the static patterns
perfect" is another way to work with DQ.  

The other thing is that I don't see why the critical forum would be a "nice,
little, out of sight place" at all.  As most people do criticise at least
one aspect of Pirsig's ideas and have other favourite philosophers they wish
to talk about I would think this forum would be more popular than the other
one.  And everyone loves an argument.  

Finally, I didn't think of the critical forum as an anti-Pirsig forum.  As I
think Matt said, it might be because of your wish to see Pirsig's ideas
given more credence that you are critical of the aspects you perceive to be
weighing against it.  Nor, in fact, did I see the other forum as necessarily
pro-Pirsig, really, as the MOQ's opponents and critics (and undecideds and
indifferents) could well have much to offer in terms of extrapolating its
philosophical architecture.  I guess philosophy teaching departments would
collapse if the activity I'm suggesting wasn't possible.  Can a Kantian
teach Rorty?  Maybe not!

Cheers

Paul  





More information about the Moq_Focus mailing list