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

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Mary]
What's the difference between "Ukraine" and "The Ukraine"?

[Arlo]
Do you attribute behavior to one? "The Ukraine says..."?

But I'll play with this a bit, even if its on the surface a dreadful example.

"The Ukraine" exists as defined by an authoritative body enforcing 
national boundaries. While you and I may see very unimportant lines 
on a map, people living in these areas often dispute these areas, 
suggesting that the closer one is involved, one realizes there is NO 
"one true Ukraine", but identities of people based on 
socio-geographic or socio-political affliliations. (There is even 
argument in these border regions no only over whether or not someone 
is IN the Ukraine, but whether or not someone can call themselves 
"Ukrainian", pointing to the conversation I am having with Matt).

In short, "The Ukraine" is mere convention that works better at 
abstract distances, but the closer one gets to the "boundaries" or 
the definitional constructs, the more it falls apart. Also, it works 
at these levels because there is a (typically military) authority 
forcing a particular "definition" (regarding the "geographic Ukraine").

To keep your analogy, we'd have to agree that "THE metaphysics of 
Quality" is tied to a particular authority and this authority decides 
for everyone where the boundaries to "THE MOQ" are. This points to 
the narrative genre Pirsig adopted, and I think for conventional 
purposes we usually say "THE metaphysics of Quality says..." as 
meaning "Robert Pirsig says..."

I mean, you don't think "THE metaphysics of Quality" can speak, do 
you? Obviously, IT can't say anything. You can. I can. Bo can. Pirsig 
can. And what we say are our own formulations and revisions, 
extensions and contextualizations, agreements and disagreements with 
(in the case of this forum) Pirsig's ideas.

But this seems to suggest you think there is "THE metaphysics of 
Quality", rather than Pirsig's metaphysics, your metaphysics, my 
metaphysics, Bo's metaphysics, that may share some commonality we 
can, for convenience, place under an umbrella descriptor, that stands 
apart and is simply observed or interpreted by us blind fools.

So I don't understand why its so problematic for the SOLists to say, 
"Pirsig advanced a particular metaphysics, and in this metaphysics 
SOM is one of many intellectual patterns. Bo, and others, have 
examined this critically and found Pirsig wrong in this formulation 
and have built a metaphysics from revising Pirsig's ideas so that the 
intellectual level is held to be exclusively SOM."

Valid. Honest. Simple.

What focus on "THE" does is trap the conversation in "who speaks for 
THE metaphysics of Quality?" rather than "whose ideas are better?" 
And not only that, it leads to absurdity after absurdity. I mean, you 
don't really want to support an "argument" that says "Pirsig is a 
weak interpreter of Pirsig"? Do you? Because since he denies he wrote 
anything in his books that would lead to that conclusion, that is 
what he becomes. Too dumb to understand what he himself was saying, 
and part of the "weak interpreter" camp that promtes a "dead MOQ" 
(whatever that means).

So, I'm going to reask YOU these questions, Mary.

[Arlo repeats]
Why is the following such a seemingly alien concept for you, Platt and Bo?

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

(2) 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".

Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what 
value do you think it has?

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"?

Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ" into 
some "reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? This makes 
no sense. Pirsig can't be wrong about his ideas, but his ideas can be 
wrong. In the same way, Bo's ideas are not "THE MOQ", they are his ideas.

If we drop the word "THE", and instead simply talk about people's 
ideas, do you not see how all this interpretive nonsense and need for 
authoritative legitimacy would disappear?

In other words, what do you think is wrong with saying "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"?

Does that not sum up your position? Why is it more important for you 
to say instead "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual 
level to SOM"?