6 comments on “Pirsig Chautauqua

  1. If this is the best they can do then it seems to me Robert Pirsig’s restatement of Carl Jung is fading fast.

    McWatt got the thought Police onto me for reminding folks of the ‘fake paper’.
    I think that just about says it all?

    How things change with experience….

  2. Hi Mark, at the level Pinkava, Sexson, Cruzado and the DeWeeses’s pitched it around the ZMM chautauqua and the recognition of Pirsig by MSU I think they got it right. Some of the stuff Sexson writes from the mythos angle has quality in its own right. I wasn’t there, and numbers seemed quite sparse, but I doubt the event progressed the metaphysics greatly.

  3. As far as the “fake paper” is concerned, I take a pragmatic view above any personal views. I’m as disappointed as anyone that my advice to address it openly at the time, and in the subsequent Baggini interview, was ignored. However, assuming “we” retain a common motivation to promote MoQ and better understanding of where its value fits the world – then clearly that paper is not the first thing we would want to advertise to newcomers. I retain historical links to it in the blog, in context.

  4. Hi Ian,
    Let this stand.
    There have been two significant developments since ‘Lila’ was published:
    1. Dynamic Coherence.
    2. The Hoax Paper.

    The MoQ (Lila) can not accommodate 2.
    1. can accommodate 2.

    [The MD Hierarchy] threw the baby out with the bath water.

  5. You are obviously being selective in those “significant developments” Mark. I’m guessing by 1 you mean your own work on the subject? But it’s existed since sometime around the big bang.

    I actually disagree with the assertion that MoQ cannot accommodate 2. (I think you are referring to MD not accommodating it.)

  6. Hi Mark,

    Although you promote your very own personal invention of Dynamic Coherence Sweet Spots as an extension to Pirsig’s MoQ (At the top of your Facebook page) you in fact attack Pirsig and the MoQ in personal terms like “talentless” and “ignorant”, with your oh so witty satirical cartoons and mashups of book covers and the like. You show very little sign of wanting to develop the MoQ in any positive way. Sad also that you are both self-promoting about your own contribution AND ad-hominem in your attacks on others, even sadder that choose someone like Henry as one of your targets.

    I know you’re still bitter and twisted about the Liverpool events, and your attempts at satire are an outlet for that anger. You have the facebook page for that now. I do let your comments through on my personal blog – the only moderation I apply is to neutralise where you choose to make accusations against named individuals, particularly as sadly, the vast majority of your attacks are ad-hominem. There are other channels for personal grudges, and whilst I’ve offered to mediate in the past, I won’t allow you to use my personal blog for that.

    It’s sad also that you choose to ignore the substantive content of anything said. I too have made my comments about “originality”. I too have said that MD is in danger of throwing the MoQ baby out with the bathwater. So have others like Khoo and David M. The difference is we are trying to raise the baby, whereas you are personally attacking the plumber.

Leave a Reply