[MD] The One True MOQ

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Matt]
If I catch you right, your re-opening the case I was making against a 
particular rhetorical pattern in Pirsig's writing--the avoidance of 
the appearance having authority--and isolating one specific instance 
of rhetorical choice: "a MoQ" or "the MoQ."  Is that right?

[Arlo]
I think so. In the "a/the" distinction, it seems to me, we find the 
bottom of a lot (or most, if not all) the hullaballo keeping the 
dialogue about Bo's revisions trapped in the quest for interpretive 
legitimacy rather than moving them to the realm of competing ideas.

Pirsig had remarked (paraphrased) that he uses the convention "THE 
metaphysics of Quality says..." as a rhetorical device to avoid 
saying "I, Robert Pirsig, say...", and I think within his narrative 
style this is okay so long as one understands one is within a narrative genre.

Authors such as Peirce (for example) do not have to say something 
like "The Triadic Semiotics says...", he can simple write ".. and I 
will call it the logical interpretant...". He was not writing an 
entertaining narrative, so it remains quite upfront that what you are 
reading are HIS thoughts. I do understand Pirsig also tried, via the 
narrative, to keep foregrounded the notion that "People should see 
that it's never anything other than just one person talking from one 
place in time and space and circumstance. It's never been anything 
else, ever, but you can't get that across in an essay." (ZMM)

Unfortunately, I think this convention escapes those who fixate on 
the "THE", and indeed has produced the opposite effect for these 
people from what Pirsig intended.

Consider that regarding other philosophical systems, you never hear 
anyone saying "THE Absolute Idealism says..." or "THE Pragmatism 
says...". People speak generally about these philosophies to describe 
general trends within those particular lines of thinking, but the 
discussion is about "James' Pragmatism" or "Hegel's Idealism", etc.

For me, I think if we are to use the convention "THE metaphysics of 
Quality says...", then everywhere this appears you should be able to 
substitute "Robert Pirsig says..." (as he indicated this was his 
narrative rhetoric). And this is not problematic, from I've seen, to 
nearly all people on this list.

But it has produced befuddlement and confusion for the SOLists who 
now seem to see "THE MOQ" as something "out there" of which people 
"interpret" and some of those people, including Pirsig himself, can 
be wrong about. This would be like someone insisting there is "THE 
Pragmatism" about which James and Dewey only "interpreted", rather 
than seeing that James and Dewey simply had IDEAS and it is these 
IDEAS one should be contrasting, not bickering about who "interpreted 
THE Pragmatism" correctly.

[Matt]
And you want to say that Pirsig should have rather stated, in light 
of his comment that "there already is a metaphysics of Quality," that 
he was talking about "a MoQ"?

[Arlo]
Well, not a "should" in any sense other than it seems to be a point 
of consternation for the SOLists. I understand the use of the 
narrative genre, and I understand that reading a "story" laden with 
"I, Robert Pirsig, say..." can be kinda dull. But yes, in light of 
his comment you point to, it makes much more sense to see him 
offering "A metaphysics of Quality".

[Matt]
That's interesting: if Pirsig had rather always stated "A metaphysics 
of Quality says that...," he would have rhetorically created a field 
of inquiry...Instead of rhetorically creating a system, he could have 
created a field.

[Arlo]
I hadn't thought it this to this level, but I think this is correct.

[Matt]
I'm not sure how much it matters, though.  I can't wrap my head 
around imagining whether it would have been better because the 
problem is still acolytes: people will still defend Pirsig's version 
as the best one because they believe it to be so, and people will 
still rightly fight about just what Pirsig's version was that is better.

[Arlo]
Well, maybe not, but I think such acolyting would be exposed clearly. 
It's kind of a slight-of-hand to keep saying "THE metaphysics of 
Quality says..." to masquerade that whatever Pirsig said is 
unassailable truth. It has the "air" of authoritative legitimacy, 
doesn't it? If someone kept writing "Robert Pirsig says... Robert 
Pirsig says... Robert Pirsig says...", we'd see that for what it is. 
But the same person writing "the MOQ says... the MOQ says... the MOQ 
says..." this is kinda placed behind a veil.

And, oddly, as I said before it is the people in the most 
disagreement with Pirsig that seem to solely concerned with tying 
themselves to legitimacy based on what "he said". Quite frankly, I 
simply do NOT understand why this ("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"?) 
is so baffling to the SOLists. Doesn't it capture their position 
entirely? Doesn't it put their argument of firm, valid, argumentative 
ground? Doesn't it make the focus the Quality of the ideas at hand 
rather than "who is 'intepreting' Pirsig correctly"?

And a sidenote, this is why I think Bo's latest slight-of-hand 
acronym, "SIM", reflects his muddied thinking. As I pointed out to 
him, it makes "Pirsig a weak interpreter of Pirsig's ideas". This is 
just absurd.

[Matt]
But I can't help but think that the underlying tendency to be an 
acolyte cuts across such rhetorical barriers, because every MoQ 
begins with an act of interpretation: just what _is_ the fundamental 
idea of Quality.

[Arlo]
Sure. As you say there will always be acolytes. But if we move the 
dialogue to recognize that Pirsig's metaphysics is HIS interpretation 
of Quality, and Bo's metaphysics is HIS interpretation of Quality 
(formulated as a critical response to Pirsig's ideas), then I can't 
help but this we are all on better ground. But this does, correctly, 
place "interpretation" where it belongs, on the person considering 
Quality, rather than on "what Pirsig said".

Of course, maybe I'm being too much the optimist here.

[Matt]
If you consider yourself to be a Pirsigian, it will be because you 
have a distinct take on what the metonym "Pirsig" stands for, and if 
it doesn't in some way hook up to a correct apprehension of 
_something_ in the writings of an author named "Pirsig," then why on 
earth call yourself a Pirsigian who's working out a metaphysics of Quality?

[Arlo]
This is interesting to me, because how I see it this one way of 
framing a trajectory into a community of practice. I don't, 
personally, know anyone who calls themselves a "Peircian" or a 
"Jungian" in any sense other than to forge commonality with a 
community they are hoping to be part of. When used outside of this 
particular convention, I don't see any value in such labeling. In 
other words, I see it as shorthand to tell a group "Hey, I think this 
person's ideas have a lot of value and I agree with most of them", 
the community (based on its unique structures) then accepts or 
rejects this shorthand. In your example, Ham may be rejected 
as  "Pirsigian" here, but in another forum not specifically about 
Pirsig the community may see his and Pirsig's ideas as "close enough" 
to allow the label.

I know this is a wild tangent, but I guess I see such "branding" as 
nearly wholly social, maybe quite valuable in that realm, but of no 
real value intellectually. When someone is battling for a label ("I 
AM a Pirsigian, damn you, I AM!"), its usually a sign they have 
nothing of importance to say, and are only trying to "fit in" or 
attain social capital in some way.

[Matt]
If you already can't distinguish between biography and philosophy, 
nothing a writer can do will help.

[Arlo]
Fair enough. Its evident that all this is flying way over Bo's head. 
I get attacked for "stiffleing free speech" and "demanding there is 
only one correct way to think", which I guess shows clearly this 
inability to make this biography/philosophy distinction. That 
optimism thing on my part again, I guess.

[Matt]
p.s.  "Pirsig Institutionalized" is in the moq.org Forum, and there's 
a link in my rightnav bar on my website 
(pirsigaffliction.blogspot.com), and also a page with links to the 
essays with recent commentary under the link at the top of the page, 
"Moq.org Essays."

[Arlo]
I recommend it.