[MD] Metaphysics

[Andre Broersen]

Steve to Andre:
Where do you find this "true MOQ sense" of the word metaphysics?

Andre:
Well Steve, to be pedantic, these were Bodvar’s words and I understand
his words to mean that the description of reality given by Pirsig is
the most accurate description possible without falling into SOM
distinctions and arguments. As I quoted him (Bodvar), merely naming DQ
does that make DQ any less real?

Steve:
Everything that Pirsig writes on the subject takes a particular
metaphysics to be one possible intellectual construction among an
infinite possibility for descriptions of Quality.

In what sense is your idea of the "true MOQ sense" the true MOQ sense
of what the "true MOQ" says? I can't tell what you could mean by this
phrase and what you could mean by "the MOQ" if MOQ is not synonymous
with the philosophy of Robert M Pirsig as outlined in Lila and ZAMM.

Andre:
Pirsig himself has stated that his philosophy (the MoQ) is more
encompassing, inclusive and has far more explanatory power than
everything that has gone before...i.e.SOM in all its variations and
guises. Northrop continually criticises philosophies on the basis of
confusing the’ ought’ with the’ is’. Most philosophies do not reflect
what ‘is’ but the way things ‘ought to be’/ or ‘should be’ and upon
this basis analyse ‘reality’ and project (future) ways of thinking and
acting. (Marx’s dialectical materialism, based on Hegel, Fichte and
its source, Kant is a [disastrous] case in point.
Actually, the MoQ is the first metaphysics I have come across to
reflect the ‘is’ as opposed to the ‘ought’. And in this sense I
understand Pirsig’s own caution that his MoQ is not a quick fix
programme that will solve all moral conflicts in this world overnight.
It merely clarifies and orders Reality within a moral, evolutionary
framework i.e. DQ/SQ.

Steve:
In the MOQ, "true statements about reality" are not to be confused
with Quality itself and there is not just one true statement to be
made about reality...

Andre:
Agree, all statements referring to the inorganic, organic, social and
intellectual level are provisional.

Steve:
You've painted Bo as the true believer, as some sort of MOQ
fundamentalist--an odd sort of fundamentalist who does not see the
actual text of what Pirsig wrote in inventing his MOQ as having much
to do with the MOQ--as if Bo is the one who is being the most faithful
to Pirsig's MOQ while also claiming that Pirsig himself has the MOQ
all wrong. This is absurd.

Andre:
Indeed I have painted Bodvar as a forceful,  committed and passionate
follower of Quality. The truth of his interpretation of the MoQ
remains provisional. All I can gather from his arguments and evidence
is that it makes sense.
I would not claim, and doubt if Bodvar actually says this, that Pirsig
has his own MoQ ‘all wrong’. What I do detect (and Bodvar has been at
this much longer than I have)  is that Pirsig’s statements are, at
times, ambiguous ( which is okay) confusing ( which is sort of okay)
and contradictory ( which is not very helpful...to wit: the
intellectual level).

And then, amongst others, Krimel comes along with his ideas about this
level, John has other ideas, Bodvar  has his ideas...it seems we all
have our own ideas about this. The test is to match them against the
words and consistency of Pirsig’s own arguments and definitions. And,
to be fair, in the end we use our own experience of Quality as we
integrate them within the static PoV’s we call our own, which leads to
a further diversification and richness of everything else.

Steve:
What do you think it means to commit yourself to the MOQ?

Andre:
To change, in as many ways that I can experience, a SOM steeped past
into a MoQ immersed now.

Cheers,
Andre