[MD] The One True MOQ

[Arlo Bensinger]

Hey All,

Does Pirsig's admonition about issuing a "papal 
bull" correlate in some way to Bo's comments 
about there being a "one true MOQ"?

This is what I've been thinking about lately, and 
I'm going to try to tie up or get back to some 
thoughts that for me started with a lament about 
Pirsig's level of clarification or articulation about his ideas.

I am not going to repeat Matt's well-written 
essay about this ("Pirsig Institutionalized: More 
Thoughts on Pirsig and Philosophology" , Matt-- 
could not find this online doing a quick search 
or I'd link it), but I will quote a bit to start.

"In trying to dodge both his sometimes treatment 
as a prophet or lunatic, Pirsig not only 
authorizes the “just my opinion” approach, but 
nearly necessitates its  backgrounding 
manifestation.  Part of what my arguments above 
were trying to make conspicuous is the role of 
authority in the professional community. 
Authority is granted based on extended 
persuasiveness of arguments and 
interpretations.  For a number of mainly obvious 
reasons, Pirsig is at the top of the authority 
list in the MD.  This isn’t because we worship 
him as a cult figure, but because we’ve been 
persuaded by the arguments and philosophical 
vision offered in his books.  That means we will 
take much more seriously the things he says 
because, in other words, we trust his opinion." (Kundert)

This, to me, underscores an important point that 
I've made a few times. As one of those evil 
"acerdimics", I see only Pirsig's ideas and the 
ideas of people that agree or disagree, extend or 
contextualize, tear apart and reconstruct or 
challenge or broaden or any number of 
"responses". It makes no more sense to me to say 
there is "one true MOQ" than it is to say there 
is "one true Semiotics" or "one true Nihilism".

But this is NOT supportive of the view that the 
"its all just opinion" route is the way Pirsig 
himself should go (of course it is, as Matt says 
elsewhere in his essay), but in fact I think this 
denial of "authority" has had the reverse effect 
of keeping the dialogue trapped in speculations 
of interpretation. Without a solid foundation of 
clarity to build the dialogue from, it can become 
mired in speculating just what is the foundation in the first place.

In other words, it implies there IS "one true 
MOQ" (THE metaphysics of Quality) of which 
Pirsig's ideas constitute only a beginning to. 
His reluctance to extend his authority or "issue 
a papal bull" implies that this would somehow 
impair the evolutionary trajectory of "THE 
metaphysics of Quality" (the one true MOQ).

Before his comment about the "papal bull", Pirsig 
had written "There already is a metaphysics of 
Quality. A  subject-object metaphysics is in fact 
a metaphysics in which the first division of 
Quality - the first slice of undivided experience 
­ is into subjects and objects." (LILA).

How I read this is that Pirsig's ideas constitute 
"A metaphysics of Quality", not "THE metaphysics 
of Quality", but this is where I think the Bo hang-up begins.

If there is some "one true MOQ", and this is tied 
to Pirsig's "authority", then the interpretive 
argument (this is what Pirsig "meant") becomes of 
paramount importance. It is no longer an 
evolutionary dialogue of ideas, but a competition 
to claim authoritative legitimacy.

And I think this has been why Ron has been 
endlessly frustrated trying to move his dialogue 
with Bo away from the interpretive domain and 
into the competing "betterness" of differing ideas.

Getting back to the "a/the" distinction, I think 
conventionally we've become accustomed to using 
"THE metaphysics of Quality" to specifically 
refer to Pirsig's ideas (Pirsig himself uses this 
convention in his writing). And as Matt (if I 
understood him correctly) wrote, this is, of 
course, or primary interest to those who respect his ideas.

But when we use "THE metaphysics of Quality" in 
this way, does it trap the dialogue in the 
interpretative domain by implying "there can be only one"?

In other words, if "THE metaphysics of Quality" = 
Pirsig's ideas, then a "papal bull" would seem to 
impair discussion, and capturing the 
interpretative ground would seem to be the only way to attain legitimacy.

For me, again as one of those evil 
"interlictials", I frame this as Pirsig's ideas = 
"A metaphysics of Quality" (the foundation for 
which we are all here, to be sure), and Bo's 
ideas = "A metaphysics of Quality" that is a 
critical revision of Pirsig's ideas.

Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds 
the intellectual level to SOM is better than A 
metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be 
one on many intellectual patterns", instead of 
"THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM".

And in this light there can be no "papal bulls", 
because the authority Pirsig writes from informs 
specifically HIS metaphysics of Quality, not THE metaphysics of Quality.

Is this wrong? Do others see this instead as a 
sort of competition to claim representing "the one true MOQ"?