[MD] Bitterness over Betterness

[Arlo Bensinger]

[DMB]
I think that we can have the MOQ in the strict sense and a wider 
conversation about Pirsig's ideas.

[Arlo]
Well, I think so too. I mean, it seems to me this is how it works for 
all ideas. We can discuss what "James said" or what "Peirce said" or 
what "Pirsig said", and we can discuss the larger foundational 
theories of empiricism, pragmatism, etc., contrasting certain authors 
within the field along the way.

My point, by the way, is not that one way is right or better, but 
that there is some confusion here when people talk about "The MOQ" 
and I think a large part of it is because for some "the MOQ" refers 
to Pirsig's ideas AND any and all derivative ideas, challenges, 
disagreements, etc., while for others "the MOQ" strictly refers to 
the exact ideas expressed by Pirsig (i.e., as Dan said those that do 
not run contrary to Pirsig).

[DMB]
As a practical matter, we're just talking about the MOQ as it is 
presented in the original texts and then the subsequent texts that 
examine or otherwise use those original texts.

[Arlo]
Semantically, I lean towards thinking about "the MOQ" in just this 
way, I see it more as a proper noun to describe Pirsig's ideas. I 
think this is better primarily because of the "The" in the title. I 
think of my own ideas (say the consideration of certain non-human 
patterns as social and/or intellectual) as not being "the MOQ" but 
working within "a MOQ framework". So when someone asks me "Does the 
MOQ allow for non-human social patterns?", I answer, "No, but I think 
if we extend the basic framework to allow this we end up with a 
stronger metaphysics."

I think too many people are too hung up on getting "the MOQ" to say 
such-and-such, as if there is This One MOQ and the most important 
thing one can do is to get "it" to say "what I think it should say".

Let me explain it this way. The "global" camp would likely balk at 
restating the question "what does the MOQ say?" as "what does Pirsig 
say?". For them, these are two distinct questions. The "local" camp 
would see them more as asking the same question, and queries about 
"what does the MOQ say" are invariably answered by the use of Robert 
Pirsig's words.

But this is just one basic split, and I think further problems arise 
in the global camp when, rather than trying to group many voices into 
a coherent whole, they are trapped in a battle of "which voice wins, 
and receives the honor of speaking as 'the MOQ'". This is what I've 
called the "interpretative legitimacy" crowd, where it is more 
important to assert "The MOQ says X and not Y" than it is to say "X 
is a better idea than Y".

Again, to clarify, I am only going on about this because of the 
specific problems I attribute to this use-difference. Its certainly, 
again, NOT that I find anything wrong per se with the poetic and/or 
rhetorical use of this narrative device. Although personally I 
encounter far more usage of this when it refers to a "foundation" or 
"framework". When I hear someone say "pragmatism says" I generally 
expect a foundational tenet that ALL pragmatists agree on, rather 
than hearing it used to specifically refer only to what Peirce or 
James has said. So it'd be "pragmatism says" followed by a "Peirce 
says" when I move beyond the general foundation and into the 
specifics of one particular author. But that's just my experience.

And maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but for me the 
devil has always been in the details. I am ready to put this away 
again, it only came up when Dan so misunderstood my point as to imply 
I was an "all interpretations are equally valid" supporter, prompting 
my need to clarify (and deal with our now obvious different uses of 
the word "interpret").

[DMB]
Part of the conversation will almost certainly include disputes about 
the best way to interpret the original text, the best way to read or 
understand Pirsig's MOQ.

[Arlo]
Certainly, this is the norm for ideas, despite some implying that 
only "the MOQ" has a "built in" feature for evolving. The entire 
history of philosophy is specifically this process, this historical 
dialogue where ideas emerge, are debated, are challenged, are spread 
to encompass more voices.

By the way, saying "Pirsig's MOQ" is a good move. :-)

[DMB to John]
If we want to know WHAT Pirsig said or thinks, we can present 
evidence by simply quoting the relevant part of his text. But if we 
want to know if Pirsig is RIGHT about what he said, quoting his text 
is useless and it couldn't count as evidence one way or the other.

[Arlo]
Exactly, and the way you word this demonstrates elegantly the way we 
can speak if we skip the term "the MOQ". Not that we have to, but 
this is the clarity that would result.