[MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Krimel,

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
>> [Krimel]
>> I don't think there is a "THE MOQ" of even a "Pirsig's MoQ". First because
>> of the way Pirsig words things. The MoQ says... The MoQ asserts that...
>> Sometimes the way he phrases it, it is possible that even he doesn't
>> necessarily agree with it.
>
> [Steve]
> Pirsig has stated the Metaphysics of Quality is a placeholder for the
> philosphical system created by Robert M Pirsig.
>
> >From the Baggini interview:
> PIRSIG: The alternative to "The Metaphysics of Quality says," would be
> "I, Robert Pirsig, says," and that repeated many times sounds worse to
> me.
>
> [Krimel]
> Then I return to Barthes argument that Pirsig's works speak for themselves
> and whatever he says about them now, has no more authority than what you or
> I or Bo says.

Steve:
You've referenced an argument that someone has made, but you haven't
supplied the argument. Can you explain? I'm not sure that it will
apply to an author's philosophical system as well as to a work of
fiction.

I think the problem here is that "his works" that speak for themselves
include whatever he has said about his previous work. For example,
"his works" include his responses in the Baggini interview and his
comments in Lila's Child, don't they? It would seem very strange to me
to suggest that what Pirsig, the creator of the Metaphysics of
Quality, says he means by "the Metaphysics of Quality" is irrelevant
to the Metaphysics of Quality.

Best,
Steve