From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Feb 26 2005 - 23:03:45 GMT
Erin, Scott, Ant and all MOQers:
Erin said to dmb:
When somebody here expresses a disagreement there is a knee-jerk response
that a DISAGREEMENT = misunderstanding. ...So it is frustrating when you
repeatedly explain what somebody thinks they already understand but just
DISAGREE with. ...For a second can you consider the mere possibility that a
person understands what Pirsig says and disagrees with it.
dmb replies:
After reading the exchanges between Scott and Anthony, I think it is more
clear than ever. Scott disagrees BECAUSE he misunderstands. Or rather, Scott
doesn't understand Pirsig well enough to agree or disagree. It happens over
and over again. Look. Even as Scott sought to carefully explain that he
understood and only disagreed, he did it again....
Scott Roberts stated February 21st:
Most of my criticisms of the MOQ derive from two sources. One comes from my
thinking about consciousness and language, and the other comes from the
Buddhist doctrine that form is formlessness, formlessness is form. It is my
opinion that the MOQ has not grasped this...
Ant McWatt quoted Pirsig:
"In Buddhism, the world can be described in terms of 'The First Principle',
sometimes called 'Formlessness' or 'nothingness' or 'freedom' which
parallels the treatment of Quality in ZMM. The world can also be described
in terms of 'The Second Principle' of 'Form' or 'order' which parallels the
treatment of quality in LILA. In Buddhism, form and formlessness, freedom
and order, co-exist." (Pirsig 1999a)
dmb continues:
Isn't it clear that Scott has misunderstood? Its almost too obvious, isn't
it? I think it might even be insulting to explain the contrast between
Scott's characterization of Pirsig's view and Pirsig's actual comments, dear
reader, so I won't.
For Erin, I'd add that there are a number of ways to correctly interpret
Pirsig, or anyone else. But there are a lot more ways to get it wrong. It
like fixing a motorcycle. There is room to improvise, be creative, make
additions. But if you don't understand what you're doing, you can really
hack things up so they don't work at all. We don't need a perfect critera by
which to judge, nor do we need to have "absolute" knowledge of anything.
(Whatever those things are?) If we want to understand what Pirsig thinks we
read what he writes. If we are interested in something more than our own
interpretations, then maybe we will check our impression against those of
other Pirsig readers. And so here we are. Now we have Ant providing us with
a direct and relevant Pirsig quote to correct Scott's misconception. One
that even employs the same terms. Its a beautiful thing. Don't waste it.
Thanks.
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 26 2005 - 23:08:27 GMT