[MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Bo]
I hate to the make it personal and would have 
liked to say "...those who have supported the 
MOQ" because I know that Mary and Platt do defend 
the MOQ. Likewise shame on the hypocrites who - 
to my great satisfaction - are those who don't 
know the first thing about the MOQ -  Ian and Dan 
f.ex. - from DMB I didn't expect anything else.

[Arlo]
I'm taking the liberty to rectify the poor 
rhetoric and ignorance in this short example of 
"why Bo has nothing relevant to say".

I hate to the make it personal and would have 
liked to say "...those who have supported [my 
interpretation of Pirsig's] MOQ" because I know 
that Mary and Platt do defend [my interpretation 
of Pirsig's] MOQ. Likewise shame on the 
hypocrites who - to my great satisfaction - are 
those who don't know the first thing about [why 
my interpretation of the MOQ is better than 
Pirsig's] MOQ -  Ian and Dan f.ex. - from DMB I didn't expect anything else.

There. Accurate. Rhetorically sound.

What Bo has proven here, though, is just what I 
pointed out the other day, the only expenditure 
here is to claim interpretive legitimacy by 
claiming that there is ONE MOQ, and of this even 
the author himself is not to be trusted to deliver the "strong" interpretation.

[Pirsig]
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.

[Arlo]
Correct. What we conventionally call "THE MOQ", 
the convention that has confounded Bo since I've 
been a member of the list, is what we, those 
interested in Pirsig's ideas, use to refer to specifically Pirsig's ideas.

This is why Bo is more concerned with claiming 
legitimacy for his revision of Pirsig's work 
(claiming it is THE metaphysics of Quality) 
rather than just stating the simple and elegant truth.

Bo's ideas are a revision of Pirsig's ideas.

Bo's formulation for a metaphysics of Quality is 
a critical revision of Pirsig's metaphysics of Quality.

Indeed, I'm going to back up for a moment to 
Pirsig's comment above and say "of Quality" is 
redundant. It concretizes something (not a 
problem for most of us, but apparently a great burden for the SOLists).

You could just say "Pirsig's metaphysics" and be done with it.

Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical 
revision of Pirsig's metaphysics.

Accurate. Rhetorically sound. Valid. Simple.

Back to Bo's horrible rhetoric.

[Bo]
So, from now on I'll drop the SOL and call it by 
it's proper designation: "The Strong Interpretation of the MOQ".

[Arlo]
Actually, if you want its "proper designation", 
you'd have to go with "A Strong Interpretation of 
Pirsig's MOQ"... in other words "Bo's MOQ".

Frankly, I'm continually amazed that so much 
effort is spent in such shoddy ways to grasp any 
straw of authoritative legitimacy possible. But 
since you have never really understood Pirsig, I 
guess no one should be surprised.

[Bo]
Whether Pirsig agrees or not is of little interest...

[Arlo]
In your entire post, this is the only nine words 
that make any sense. Kudos, as Ian said.

[Bo]
... no one can copyright reality and the MOQ is 
not an expansion of the intellectual level, but 
an expansion of reality itself.

[Arlo]
I'll take the liberty to correct this monstrosity as well.

"... no one can copyright reality and [my 
interpretation of Pirsig's] MOQ is not an 
expansion of the intellectual level, but an expansion of reality itself. "

Its really no wonder, Bo, with such a dismal 
display of "thinking", only three or four people 
here take you seriously or pay attention to this SOL nonsense at all.

If you had been paying attention, you'd have seen 
I provided you a sound rhetorical and argumentatively valid platform last week.

[Arlo previously]
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".

[Arlo]
Your latest post is simply more evidence that you 
are eternally trapped in some battle (with 
yourself?) for interpretative legitimacy. I had 
hoped, as I'm sure others were doing, that your 
time away was spent figuring that out. Obviously not.