[MD] Frewill

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Dan]
Yes you have a point. Still, if other authors subscribe to pragmatism 
they should certainly give James his due credit and build on his 
work, rather than misinterpreting it into something it is not.

[Arlo]
I absolutely agree. This is precisely what I had been saying in the 
"interpretative legitimacy" thread.

[Dan]
Yes there is that. But in all intellectual honesty, any Quality-ism 
author needs to make it clear that their work is not related to the 
Metaphysics of Quality, or if it is, how it is related. They need to 
name their theory something else, like Ham has done. Nothing wrong with that.

[Arlo]
Well this is again the very terminology problem I am pointing 
towards. Sure, every author can coin a name for their metaphysics 
(although I am not sure why this would be important), but we need a 
term to describe the "school" of ideas that build from a similiar foundation.

Its apparent you do not think "Metaphysics of Quality" should be the 
label applied to the school, but should remain the label applied only 
to Pirsig's particular ideas. My point is that others are using this 
term to refer to the broad sum of ideas that include but also derive 
from Pirsig's ideas. This is why the term means "one" to you and 
others, but "many" for some on the list.

[Dan]
But there are (and have been) many contributors here who aren't 
intellectually honest. They insist there is A Metaphysics of Quality 
and therefore their interpretation is just as valid as RMP's and in 
some cases even more valid!

[Arlo]
Well, I absolutely agree. Again, this what my exact point in the 
"interpretative legitimacy" thread.

[Dan]
I do so on account of viewing the MOQ as kind of a "living" document. 
I don't mean it is alive in the same sense my cat is alive, but 
rather it is both a
static and Dynamic document, capable of evolving towards something 
better. It speaks to me.

[Arlo]
Well this is the heart of the matter, Dan, but herein lies the 
problem. How can "The Metaphysics of Quality" evolve towards 
something better the label refers to "what Pirsig said". What he said 
can't evolve, what he said is what he said.

Evolution occurs in the "school" of ideas where people agree and 
disagree and come up with something better. This is exactly how 
Pirsig's ideas came into being in the first place! It wasn't that 
"Aristotle's metaphysics evolved", but that Pirsig saw something he 
strongly disagreed with, and came up with something better.

You can see the issue, I think, if you substitute "Pirsig's ideas" 
for "The MOQ" in your sentence, suggesting that "Pirsig's ideas are 
capable of evolving towards something better". Okay, but how? If its 
"his ideas", and if derivation or deviation from them moves one 
outside "The MOQ", then how will his ideas evolve? All we can do is 
speak with greater and greater precision about what he said, but if 
we want to find evolution we have to look at the larger dialogue.

[Dan]
I have no disagreement with this. I think the same thing is 
developing now with the MOQ, what with Ant's work and dmb's endeavors 
and others like David Granger who have used RMP's work as a 
springboard to enhancing their own views.

[Arlo]
Exactly. What we need, then, is a term to describe the "school" that 
builds off this foundation. Qualityism? D/S Metaphysics?So we can 
say, for example, that both Granger and Pirsig are "Qualityists", but 
may offer some unique distinctions to each others ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating labels per se (in fact I'd 
personally advocate against them, which is why I say "Pirsig's 
ideas"), but I think in this case the issue seems to be that one 
label is being appropriated for two distinct things, and this is 
causing the problem you are arguing against.

[Dan]
Fair enough. But he did name it the Metaphysics of Quality, 
presumably to distinguish his theory from others. I guess I don't see 
the problem.

[Arlo]
I think you do see the problem, you see it when you point to the way 
others are using the term. I'm agreeing with you here, by the way, if 
he named his ideas "The Metaphysics of Quality" then this label 
should be applied to his ideas. Even Peirce coined the word 
"Pragmaticism" to differentiate between his ideas as "Pragmatism" as 
it was understood. But one still wouldn't say "Pragmaticism says...", 
its "Peirce says..."

In any event, I know I am beating a dead horse here. I'm not arguing 
against you, I hope you understand, I am just trying to illuminate a 
problem that derives from this terminology, and is the "cause" (if 
you will) of the disagreements over "one/many MOQ(s)".