[MD] Imaginings

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Craig]
I can't see you're in agreement since John is talking about what's REAL & Arlo
is talking about what is COMPLETE, which is not the same thing. 

[Arlo]
Well, I'd say that "real" in John's example refers to incompleteless. Its not
like the "thing named" is something else entirely, just something "less than"
the "unnamed".  In fact, what other way can you even read "not real" here? 

Think Quality.

"The quality that can be defined is not the Absolute Quality." 

What do you think Pirsig is referring to here? Incompleteness.

Indeed, Pirsig himself says so.

"Since the One is the source of all things and includes all things in it, it
cannot be defined in terms of those things, since no matter what thing you use
to define it, the thing will always describe something less than the One
itself."

All these statements refer to incompleteness. There is no other way to read
"the Allah that can be named is not the real Allah"...