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

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Bo]
Horse has ordered me to engage in a conversation with you so I better comply.

[Arlo]
Well, I appreciate it. Sadly you don't really answer my questions, 
except to restate your claim that Pirsig somehow "originated" the 
SOL, but let me walk through it step by step.

[Arlo previously]
Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of Pirsig's 
metaphysics.

[Bo]
It is NOT, but I guess that's taboo so I did not say it.

[Arlo]
See, its dishonesty like this that is the problem. Pirsig formulated 
a metaphysics where the intellectual level is NOT restricted to SOM. 
He has said this. YOUR revision of his ideas is to hold the 
intellectual level TO SOM. YOUR metaphysics is NOT Pirsig's 
metaphysics. They are different.

And why is this such a bad thing for you? You can validly claim YOUR 
metaphysics is grounded in the early ideas of Pirsig, but you go in a 
direction different from the one he went. Valid. Sound. Simple.

[Bo]
He starts a SOList in ZAMM, then 50/50% in LILA, then sort of a 
rejection in LC, but then a reversed flight back towards the strong 
interpretation. I must be allowed to defend my case. I'm accused of 
dishonesty but I really wonder who are the liars.

[Arlo]
Where you see SOL is your misinterpretation of what he wrote. He is 
clear about this, saying "there was nothing in the MOQ that would 
lead to this conclusion". Now, again, you can make a valid argument 
that YOUR ideas draw from some of HIS but go in a different direction.

But this is the problem, Bo, you are so hung up on claiming 
interpretative authority that you're going so far as to claim Pirsig 
is too stupid to understand his own ideas. YOU understand Pirsig 
BETTER than Pirsig! Do you not see how absurd that is?

[Bo]
And I don't doubt for a minute that the strong interpretation of the 
MOQ (SIM) will prove to be THE MOQ and your SOM-MOQ will be left in 
the dust.

[Arlo]
Right. Because three people take you seriously. Okay. Whatever.

But this totally skips my question. This whole sentence should be 
rewritten, "And I don't doubt for a minute that [my revision of the 
Pirsig's metaphysics] will prove to be [better] and [Pirsig's lower 
quality one] will be left in the dust."

There. Sound. Valid. Simple.

My question was "why are you so hung up on the word "THE"?"

Listen to this Bo, and listen very, very carefully. "THE metaphysics 
of Quality does not say anything, YOU DO". It is not "out there" 
waiting for us to hear it and interpret it correctly. This is not 
about "which is the one true MOQ", but about "which formulation of a 
metaphysics of Quality is better?"

[Bo]
So now as the leader of the "weaklings" it's up to you to work out 
the experiment that will prove the strong faction wrong.

[Arlo]
I really think you are delusional, Bo. Really. Not kidding. This who 
ego-aggrandizement fascination with your pet theory is pretty 
pathetic. But even playing this game, you'd have to say that Pirsig 
is, in fact, "the leader of the weaklings", since he has rejected the 
SOM and instead argues for an intellectual level where SOM is but one 
particular pattern.

To be fair, I have simply no interest in the SOL/SIM/SOLAQI/whatever. 
My only interest here is to ensure the valid ground and prevention of 
dishonesty. In this regard, I am trying to HELP you, Bo. But in the 
end if you drown in your own foolishness, its not my concern.

[Arlo previously]
Do you disagree with me that we use the phrase "THE metaphysics of 
Quality" as a conventional way of referring specifically to Pirsig's 
ideas, but that it would in fact be more accurate to say "Pirsig's 
metaphysics"?

[Bo]
Not sure if I get the point here.

[Arlo]
Pirsig commented he used the narrative device "The MOQ says..." as a 
way of avoiding repeating "I, Robert Pirsig, say...". To this end, 
its a common narrative style used in that genre. And when we use this 
convention "The MOQ says..." we are not referring to some "out there" 
entity that Pirsig is "interpreting", but we use it to mean "Pirsig says.."

As I've said many times now, I think this is a source of befuddlement 
for you and the SOLists, who have interpreted this convention to mean 
there is "one true MOQ" out there, like an elephant in a room of 
blind men, and we are just "interpreting" what this MOQ says.

This is absurd. There is no MOQ talking, there is only Pirsig 
talking. And his ideas constitute "A metaphysics of Quality", just as 
your opposing views constitute "A metaphysics of Quality".

[Bo]
Pirsig's "wrong" was that of returning from the wilderness - not 
going all the way - , but I understand his ordeal as a pioneer, he 
beat a track that we now can make a Sunday excursion along, I admire 
him boundlessly, but he was wounded in his lonely fight.

[Arlo]
Okay, this is valid ground (for the most part). You disagree with 
Pirsig. You think he took his ideas in the wrong direction. Kudos. 
Stay here, its the valid ground you should be on.

[Bo]
I give you one example of Pirsig being wrong about his own ideas: 
Remember the passage about the "old books of the Bible lacking 
intellectual content" (according to P. in the Turner letter)?

[Arlo]
No, Bo. You're claiming Pirsig's ideas are wrong. That is fair, and 
valid. But I said you can't claim Pirsig is wrong about his ideas. He 
knows what they are. If he says "there is nothing in the MOQ to 
support that conclusion", then he means it. He is not wrong about his 
ideas, although you may claim his ideas are wrong.

Understand? You are trying to claim he was too stupid (or too 
cowardly) to know what he himself meant. That's idiotic. And makes 
you look like a fool. You can disagree with him, but you can't 
overlook his objections to your interpretation by saying he doesn't 
understand his own ideas.

[Bo]
Because you are wrong about Pirsig unambiguously supporting the "SOM 
just one Intellectual pattern".

[Arlo]
I think Pirsig is a smart enough guy to know what he means and what 
he meant. When he says "there is nothing in the MOQ to support that 
(the SOL) conclusion", I think he is saying "there is nothing in my 
ideas that supports the SOL". Now, you can, as I've said many many 
times, claim that your ideas derive from his, and improve upon his 
ideas by offering something better, but you seem so blindly intent on 
claiming interpretative authority that I don't see any hope 
whatsoever for your little pet theory.

[Bo]
Because to anyone honest enough to admit it THE MOQ is the strong MOQ 
or it is a dead MOQ.

[Arlo]
Again, this is just delusional. Pirsig's ideas constitute a "dead 
MOQ"? This makes no sense. You should be saying, "Because to anyone 
[who understands my metaphysics] enough [should see] [A] MOQ [with 
the SOL] is [a better MOQ than Pirsig's]. I'd disagree emphatically, 
but this puts you on valid ground and drops the masturbatory ego out 
of the rhetoric.

I don't know, Bo. I think Matt was right. Its impossible to help the 
blind see.