Matt, Marsha and all MOQers:

dmb says:
It seems that one of the problems here is that we don't agree on what the
problem is. I've recently aimed this complaint at the so-called critics and
detractors, pointing out that none have ever supplied a clear explanation as
to what the problem is, what the variation or alternative is suppose to fix
or resolve. As a result, the critics and detractors all look more like
cranks and distractors and the constant objections only look like pointless
interuptions. I think highjacking of topics and threads that goes on around
here is a pretty serious problem and is mostly the result of the various pet
projects getting interjected by these critics. And these interjections and
diversions are oftern irrelevant or inappropriately applied to the issues
and topics in the threads that are highjacked. If you were following the
"Rhetoric" thread, which begain as a discussion about the mysticism of the
Sophists and the rhetoric they used, you may have noticed some frustration
over my futile attempts to get Matt to hear me and to keep him on the topic.
You may have noticed my bewilderment at his apparent refusal to do anything
other than apply that same old Rortian critique to my every utterance. In
any case, I think lots of this type of confusion and cross-talk could be
avoided if the "problems" were much, much more clearly laid out and
explained. Check out this exchange, for example....

In the "Language, SOM, and the MoQ" thread, Marsha said to Matt:
Your post feels like being asked to sort a huge pile of mixed seeds.  I
don't feel up to the task, but I will give it a try.  I'd like to know where
my contradictions might be. ...Problems?  Where do they come from?

Matt replied:
I think this is the biggest problem I have.  Its tough to convince people to
be afraid of what they aren't afraid of.  If you don't see any problems,
then I have to convince you that there are problems.  Of course, on the
other hand, its not like I think philosophical problems are that big a deal.
I think the only people that lead slightly less happy lives because of
philosophical problems are philosophers.  Other people just don't even have
any idea what you're talking about.  So, if you don't want to play the game
of philosophy (which says "don't leave contradictions around"), then that's
perfectly fine.  But the problems I'm trying to point out are problems only
_if_ you play the game.   ...but I don't think they have world-historical
importance to all people (like, say, the problems of the Cold War did).

dmb says:
See, after going around in circles for a few months in the "Rhetoric" thread
it seems Matt and I haven't even been talking about the same problem. The
frustrating thing is, I started that thread and introduced the problem in
the very first post. As a result, this thread was highjacked and dominated
by Matt's Rortian critique from the very beginning. This had the effect of
changing the topic and gave the impression that Matt likes to "listen" to
with his ears plugged while singing, "blah, blah, blah" so as to preclude
anything from getting through. This resulted in dancing around the topic in
countless ways so that the actual topic could be perpetually avoided. My
point? I'm frustrated with these kinds of time-wasting distractions. This
confession of Matt's, that he's playing philosophy and not concerned with
larger, global problems really kills me because I thought we were taliking
about global problems. (And then hopefully we were suppose to get to the
topic of the MOQ as a metaphysical solution.) Here are a couple of the
Pirsig quotes that I used to introduce the problem and to frame the issue
way back on August 6th...

"Phaedrus remembered a line from Thoreau: "You never gain something but that
you lose something". And now he began to see for the first time the
unbelievable magnitude of what man, when he gained power to understand and
rule the world in terms of dialectic truths, had lost. He had built empires
of scientific capability to manipulate the phenomena of nature into enormous
manifestations of his own dreams of power and wealth - but for this he had
exhanged an empire of understanding of equal magnitude: an understanding of
what it is to be a part of the world, and not an enemy of it." ZAMM 342

"And the bones of the Sophists long ago turned to dust and what they said
turned to dust with them and the dust was buried under the rubble of
declining Athens through its fall and Macedonia through its decline and
fall. Through the decline and death of ancient Rome and Byzantium and the
Ottoman Empire and the modern states - buried so deep and with such
ceremoniousness and such unction and such evil that only a madman centuries
later could discover the clues needed to uncover them and see with horror
what had been done." ZAMM 345

dmb resumes:
I ask you, dear reader, is there anything in these quotes that might invite
a discussion of linguistics, recontextualizations, the vocabulary
vocabulary, absolute certainties, the representational theory of truth? I
can tell you my intention was that nothing of the sort. Sadly, instead of
talking about what was lost and how to get it back, instead of talking about
the problem that I presented, the problem that Pirsig's ZAMM is meant to
address, I had to spend time defending vague objections and answering
irrelevat objections even while my own points were being ignored. And I
suspect this highjacking by the Jargonator was enough to scare away some
poster who might have liked to discuss the original topic too. This just
kills me. After a dozen weeks of these diversions, Matt confessed that he
doesn't see any desperate need to solve this problem, he apparently doesn't
share Pirsig's horror over the loss of mysticism and also confessed...

Matt on Nov 7th:
....I've never claimed to be familiar with Eastern philosophy or mysticism.  
I've always acknowledged the fact that this is an area I'm lacking in.  And
I know that to gain a fuller understanding of what
Pirsig is up to I will have to broaden my grasp of Eastern philosophy.  I've
never denied that either.  However, just as much as I do agree that, to have
a good grasp on what Pirsig is doing, you need to know some Buddhism, I also
think its obvious that people need to know some Western philosophy.  I'm
mining one vein in Pirsig, but there are many others.  I don't think I'm
mucking up the other veins, but as much as you think that my mining of the
Western philosophical angle has led me to distort Pirsig, I think you're
distorting Pirsig because you neglect it.

dmb says:
Your attempt at even-handedness here (we both distort) is childish and the
charge that I'm neglecting the West is ridiculous. The orignal problem as I
introduced it is the historical predicament of THE WEST. We disagree about
what the problem is IN WESTERN PHILOSOPHY. And personally, I'm attracted to
the MOQ becasuse it addresses that problem. The clash between science and
religion, between Modernity and the reactionary forces, that's the problem.
The death of God, the rise of fascism and fundamentalism, the rise of that
value-free rationality and the alienation of humanity from God, Nature and
itself. That's the problem. The system crushes souls, breaks hearts and
shatters dreams. That's what I'm talking about.

"So here is the utterly bizarre structure of today's world; a scientific
framework that is global in its reach and omnipresent in its information and
communication networks, forms a meaningless skeleton within which hundreds
of sub-global, premoden religions create value and meaning for billions; and
they each - science and religion each - tend to deny significance, even
reality to the other. This is a massive and violent schism and rupture in
the internal organ of today's global culture, and this is exactly why many
social analysts believe that if some sort of reconciliation between science
and religon is not forthcoming, the future of humanity is, at best,
precarious."

"Fact and meaning, truth and wisdom, science and religon, It is a strange
and grotesque coexistence, with value-free science and value-laden religion,
deeply distrustful of each other, aggressively attempting to colonize the
same small planet. It is a clash of Titans, to be sure, yet neither seems
strong enough to prevail decisively nor graceful enough to bow out
althogether. The trial of Galileo is repeated countelss times, moment to
moment, around the world, and it is tearing humanity, more or less, in
half." Ken Wilber in "THE MARRIAGE OF SENSE AND SOUL: Integrating Science
and Religion".

And frankly, I think the philosophical problems in the philosophical game
that Matt is playing is pretty trivial by comparison. No matter what context
we put it in, no matter what vocabulary we use, an anti-Modern religious nut
with a nuke is a serious problem.

How is social conflict, terrorism, war and genocide connected to what was
lost so long ago? Do we really need to be convinced that there is a problem
here? And how is Pirsig's pragmatism part of the solution? These are the
questions I'd hope to get at before the highjacking. But at least one thing
is certain, Matt doesn't care to know. In his own long-winded way, he
refuses to discuss such things and apparently prefers to suck all the oxygen
out of the room so nobody else will eiither. Naturally, I resent it.

Once, a bunch of people were meeting to form a discussion group and somebody
rasied the question of how topics would be selected. One of the guys there
said something like, "It doesn't matter what the topic is, I'm gonna talk
about whatever I want to talk about anyway". Fortunately I'd already had
enough experience with discussion groups to see where this was going. I had
encountered participants with similar attitudes before, so as soon as I
heard that statement I turned on my heels, walked out the door muttering
insults under my breath and never returned.

Ok, now I'm done with the pity potty. Thanks for holding my hand.
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/



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@dark...

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html