From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Feb 08 2004 - 00:05:02 GMT
Wim, Rick and all:
Wim said:
Is it THE MoQ we are discussing (i.e. as meant by Pirsig) or are we (should
we be) discussing the merits of our various versions (with Pirsig's writings
expressing only one version or even a version that develops in time)? ..This
is NOT meant as merely a suggestion for a rule that should guide our
behaviour on this list (and MD)...Please understand it primarily as a
discussion about the nature of the MoQ. ...So, please don't merely give an
opinion on whether the MoQ we are discussing is merely the result of
Pirsig's activities or of our collective activities.
Rick replied:
That's where you lose me Wim. Are you asking whether the MoQ states whether
or not we are or should be discussing Pirsig's MoQ or our own MoQ? That
formulation seems problematic. In fact, from the following quote, it appears
to me that what you really wanted to ask was if the MoQ is an intellectual
pattern... But this last sentence is almost precisely the question you
asked. Am I wrong Wim? Should the question be rephrased as: Is the MoQ an
intellectual pattern? That seems to be the issue you're putting your weight
down in the above argument.
dmb says:
Ouch. My brain hurts. Is the question about the validity of alternative
versions of the MOQ, is it about the MOQ itself, is it about how we should
discuss the MOQ or is it about SOLAQI? These are all very different
questions and so asking them all at once is contradictory and incoherent.
Even if Wim hadn't spun the question beyond recognition, it would still be
confusing.
I mean, its hard to imagine how to answer the question. If I understand it,
the question DOES NOT ask if it is appropriate to create our own
metaphysical system. (Of course it is.) It asks if it is appropriate to
plagarize and distort Pirsig's MOQ. I can't quite put my finger on it, but
get a feeling that something is very, very wrong here. There is something
morally outrageous about the very notion. I mean, has anyone ever heard of
Frankenstien's theory of relativity? No, because that would be cheating
Einstien. It would be intellectually dishonest. It would be theft and a lie.
Its Einstein's theory wether we like it or not. Is it appropriate for a
person to create their own theory in physics? Of course it is. But if one
calls it the theory of relativity, no one can be blamed for thinking such a
name refers to Einstein's ideas. And if one compounds this crime by
inventing new definitions for Einstien's key concepts and terms,... Its just
wrong on so many levels. And so it is with Pirsig's MOQ. I believe such a
practice is way past being unhelpful and enters the realm of intellectual
vandalism.
As you may have detected, dear reader, this is a sore spot for me. As I see
it, the question is basically about getting permission to smash Pirsig's
work until if fits our preconcieved notions. I think this is some kind of
minor evil.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 08 2004 - 07:37:23 GMT