[MD] Frewill

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Dan]
I guess that is why I tend to use the terminology "the MOQ says" 
rather than "RMP says." And yes, in a conventional, static 
intellectual quality sense, Robert Pirsig DID say it. But in order 
for the MOQ to evolve, I think he saw  that he had to (in a Dynamic 
Quality sense) let go of it.

[Arlo]
Well, maybe its just me, but now it appears you are more pointing to 
"the MOQ" as the school and NOT just what Pirsig said. I guess I 
don't understand how something can evolve and yet not deviate from 
exactly what Pirsig said.

You said he "let go of it", and this suggests to me that the term 
"the MOQ" refers to his ideas AND any derivate ideas that are built 
using his foundation.

Evolution implies change, does it not? How can something both evolve 
and remain true to an author's words?

To clarify, I'd say that Pirsig's ideas don't evolve (unless HE 
changes his mind or something), but the overall foundation he built 
does evolve as other voices contribute and disagree, etc. Again, the 
issue is not whether the one (Pirsig's voice) is better/worse than 
the many (other voices in response), but which of these you call "The 
MOQ". All along you've been saying the former (Pirsig's voice) is 
"The MOQ", but this doesn't change, and can't evolve (unless he does).

In other words, "evolution" is in the dialogue, not in the utterance. 
"Precision", that is what we find in the utterance.

[Dan]
But out of a sense of intelletcual respect, I think we all need  to 
recognise that and remain consistent to it even as we add to it and 
help to grow it.

[Arlo]
Fully agree. But what is the tolerance, if you will, for "remaining 
consistent" and "adding to it"? Take my disagreement with Pirsig over 
his exclusion of any non-human pattern in the S/I levels. Is this 
disagreement sufficiently small to say I am "adding" while "remaining 
consistent"? If all "additions" are only clarifying explanations of 
what Pirsig said, is that really adding anything at all?

I suppose contextualizing works like DiSanto's and Ant's and DMB's 
would classify mostly as "additions" that "remain consistent", the 
new things they add are "voices in support" of the initial ideas of 
Pirsig. This is great, but I don't see it as "evolution" of Pirsig's 
ideas, since the primary philosophy is unchanging and always bound to 
the words spoken by Pirsig.

And again, don't misunderstand, "precision" is something I am very 
much in support of here. If for no other reason than you can't 
genuinely agree/disagree with someone until you understand what it is 
they said.

I guess a problem here may be that we are using the word "evolution" 
differently.

Thanks for a great discussion, Dan. :-)