From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 29 2005 - 09:43:06 BST
David, when it comes to pointing out that the hoax has had / will have
a net positive contribution to understanding of the MoQ I agree, and I
think you'll find you are pushing at an open door there. (PS I think
you'll find Glenn is happy to admit it, as you say, the hoax involved
considerable effort on his part.)
Equating fiction with dishonesty isn't quite right though - motivation
is part of the process. The immediate gloating at the expense of
specific individuals, and as I've pointed out already, playing on the
lexical disability involved in writing the paper itself, were just not
intellectual cricket. (I'm prepared to give Glenn the benefit of the
doubt that those details were just not thought through in the rush to
publish, but hey, onward and upward.)
Glenn, do the honorable thing and apologise for the individual
personally motivated attacks involved in the hoax.
Horse, do the honorable thing and re-subscribe Glenn.
Ant, do the honorable thing and put up the original paper, with a
suitable explantory note and link to Glenn's pages.
Let's kiss and make up.
There I've said it.
Ian
On 8/28/05, David Harding <davidharding@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> An author called Robert Pirsig writes a fiction book about a man called
> Phaedrus.
>
> Definition of fiction from dictionary.com:
>
> "A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not
> necessarily based on fact."
>
> Glenn writes a story about a fiction person called Richard Loggins.
>
> What's the difference? Does the fact that the latter claims the fiction
> person as truth whereas the former claims the fiction person as fiction
> change anything?
>
> Definition of fact from dictionary.com:
>
> "Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed."
>
> What then of the authors whos thoughts produced these two characters to
> begin with? One claimed their character as fiction and was happy to
> have him accepted as such. The other claimed their character was fact
> and wasn't happy to have him accepted as what he really was, fiction.
> In my view this seems to be what has so many people upset, the fact that
> Glenn and Straun claimed Loggins was fact, when really he was fiction.
>
> What about the ideas the fictional Loggins held however? Just because
> it's been found that Loggin's didn't exist as a person does this mean
> the quality of his ideas all suddenly dissapear too? In contrast to
> Glenn who still, acknowledging this problem, thinks that it does when he
> says
>
> "It turned out that the people whom he[Sokal] wanted to dupe (the
> publishers of Social Text) still saw merit in his article even after he
> exposed the hoax. If something similar has happened with my paper, this
> is my attempt to expose the parody to those who still don't get it" .
>
> and later on...
>
> "Though I hope not, some of you will still manage to rationalize the
> paper as having value beyond that of a parody. "
>
> I think the quality stays right where it was.
>
> With the MOQ honesty exists at both the social and intellectual levels.
> For example, Bradford told others Loggins was fact, socially dishonest.
> Bradford claims a disease to exist "neural ampblyopia" which doesn't,
> intellectually dishonest. But beyond this his article actually shows
> great care (and it's no surprise that some were taken away at the
> conference by it) something very rare particulary from a dissenter. If
> you don't like anything at all you ignore it, you don't spend many hours
> writing a literary piece under an alter ego! As Pirsig himself has said,
> it's probably because the dissenters have such a hard trouble trying to
> find anything wrong with the MOQ that they give such a passionate
> response. As has been pointed out many a time however, dissenters
> provide lots of light with their heat, and this case is no exception,
> helped all the more with Bradford himself using the MOQ as justification
> for his paper.
>
> "Still, there is comfort for me in knowing that the MOQ accommodates
> this kind of alter-ego thing. It turns out that Richard Loggins is just
> an expression of an entirely different pattern in my mind, made possible
> by Horse's karmic decision to unsubscribe me."
>
> I think even Glenn, though he might not admit it, would be happy to know
> that his article has pushed the MOQ toward "academic acceptance".
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> -David
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Mon Aug 29 2005 - 11:47:17 BST