[MD] The One True MOQ

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Arlo previously]
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.

[Ron]
Well stated. A very important point.If we are to use what we have 
learned we would ask ourselves what difference it would make if one 
or the other were true. Using this method would illustrate the 
consequences of each and in MoQ fashion make the "Quality" 
distinction. Which has more value. This is why I say this is a fine 
exercise of MoQ's "theory".

[Arlo]
I see you have gotten no further in your repeated attempts to draw 
forth an argument for the value of Bo's SOL/SIM/SOLAQI/"whatever 
acronym Bo can think of to distract from the simple Bo's MOQ".

Surprised?

[Arlo previously]
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.

[Ron]
Exactly. Where it should be. An arguement based on interpretive 
authority gets us nowhere. Mainly it should'nt matter what Bob said. 
What should matter is which idea has more value? Thanx Arlo

[Arlo]
It matters what Pirsig said, as you say "mainly", only in fostering 
the ground from which agreement and dissent can be soundly leveled. 
Its matters, as Matt points out, in that we have come- through two 
books- to trust this person's insights. This does not mean we want to 
blindly follow him, or anyone, but that we have come to respect his 
keen insights.

[Arlo previously]
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 adds]
I just pointed this out to Bo, but I no longer have any hopes he'll 
understand. If you look at this, though, you'll see that this is 
trapped in "interpretative authority"...

"THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM"

while this is a sound pointer to "which idea has more value"...

"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"

Why do you think Bo is so incapable of seeing past the "THE"? It is 
the only thing that is giving the SOL/SIM/SOLAQI/"whatever acronym Bo 
can think of to distract from the simple Bo's MOQ" any value.

Don't expect this to change.






>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"?
>
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org/md/archives.html