From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 25 2003 - 03:23:27 GMT
All,
Noticed something quite funny today, something maybe only a handful of
people might have picked up on. I read Squonk's post, "Nifty move," and
thought, "Hunh, that sounds real familiar. Like, really familiar."
It only took me three tries to find the post I thought I would find.
Squonk said:
A beautiful thing Pirsig did was to make axiology and metaphysics the same.
Value is reality. After that you are left with epistemology which is
predominately covered in ZAMM.
(In Ch. 18 of ZAMM Pirsig essentially asks the question, "How do we know
reality has value?" That was the pinnacle question to establish Quality. We
need to establish the MoQ by asking, "Why is Dynamic better than static?")
So, essentially Pirsig reduces axiology into metaphysics, a nifty move if
I've ever seen one! This also means that three branches of axiology
(politics, aesthetics, and ethics) become the same thing as his
metaphysics. Pirsig's metaphysics is his ethics.
From "Migration towards Dynamic Quality" (Thursday, May 31 2001):
The beautiful thing that Pirsig did was make axiology and metaphysics the
same thing. Value is reality. After that you're just left with
epistemology which is what was predominately covered in ZAMM. (In fact, in
Ch 18 of ZAMM, we find Pirsig essentially asking the question How do we
know reality has value? That was the pinnacle question to establish
Quality. Now we need to establish the MOQ by answering Why is Dynamic
better than static?) So, essentially Pirsig reduces axiology into
metaphysics, a niffty move if I've ever seen one. What that also means is
that the (at minimum) three branches of axiology (politics, aesthetics, and
ethics) become the same thing as his metaphysics. Pirsig's metaphysics is
his ethics.
The author was "Matt the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat," my former,
foundationalist alter-ego, who was only on his third post when that
paragraph was written. As far as I can see, the only difference is 16
words, four commas, four quotation marks, three paragraph indents, two
parentheses, one exclamation point, one period, and one correct spelling of
"nifty." Oh, and a switch to the way both Squonk and I (now) prefer to
make "Metaphysics of Quality" into an acronym.
The only people who may have noticed this (who are still regular posters,
after all, this was almost two years ago) are Platt (who was quite
supportive of my early postings, calling my second post ever an "an
accurate and succinct summary of the MOQ," saying, "I don't recall ever
reading a better synopsis of Pirisig's revolutionary metaphysics."), Sam
(whose very first post, if I'm correct, was in response to the post in
question), and Wim (whose very first post, if I'm correct, was a response
in the thread in question).
So, its obvious Squonk did a copy and paste job. And its obvious he isn't
trying to hide it. The thing that's flabbergasting is, "Why?" What could
Squonk possibly be trying to do?
Well, I think I have a theory.
I think Squonk was setting a trap for me. For a while now, Squonk has been
trying to tag me with this overriding desire for fame, prestige, and glory
(as if any of that is something one can gain at the MoQ Forum). That I
post on the MoQ because I'm "dominated by social patterns of value" and my
"project is about building coalitions with others to a politically
motivated agenda." (Which is funny in itself given the amount I actually
talk about politics.) So, I think Squonk was baiting me to see if I would
speak up. That, "Hey, I wrote that, I should be the one who gets credit
for it." That would then be proof positive that I'm dominated by social
patterns, that anything I say should be disregarded because there's no
Quality in it, that I should be ostracized for being ... what, human?
Since I consciously walked into Squonk's trap (if it was a trap) I'll say
this on my own behalf. I deny that I can be considered to be "dominated by
social patterns" and I certainly deny that my project is politically
motivated (even in a broad construal of politics). I thought I was always
quite forthright about how I've never been out to convert people. If some
people come around to my way of thinking, or pick up on some of the things
I say, that's their choice; it really has no bearing on what I
post. However, I can willfully admit that I enjoy praise, I like it when
people come to my defense every once in a while, I have pride in what I
write. So there you go Squonk. Confirmation. I enjoy the things I write,
I think some of it is quite good. Crucify me if you will.
Of course, my crucifixion will never come because Squonk is the only person
that really hates me so (or, at least for those reasons). Squonk has
overdramatized the stakes and the enemy in his narrative of the workings of
the MoQ Forum because otherwise his ragings would look pretty
unneeded. Squonk needs to paint me as the Anti-Christ because if he
doesn't, nobody will fear the world will end if I go unchecked. And I'm
only the latest in a series of Squonk's Anti-Christs. Bo was the first and
he finally got tired of it. Platt was another. And I'm sure there will be
more if I go before Squonk does. And yet, the world still hasn't
ended. Squonk's zealotry looks to be just that: slanderous and quite
boring for people who don't take him seriously. When others push the
envelope of decency, they typically have some bite because the may hit
closer to home then some would like. But I've found Squonk's ravings to be
so empty as to be just laughable.
Since he finds me to be just as empty, I wish he would just laugh and leave
it at that.
Matt
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 : Tue Mar 25 2003 - 03:25:04 GMT