[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ant]
As such, when you or I say "the MOQ states"  I'd regard that as 
referring to our own individual interpretations of the MOQ.

[Arlo]
Of course, when we are stating our own interpretations there isn't a 
'right/wrong' condition. If I say "I interpret the MOQ to include X", 
you can say you disagree, you can say Pirsig's (or your own, or someone 
else's) interpretation is 'better' or more explanatory or more coherent, 
etc.

And I guess that's the 'itch' I keep finding myself scratching over the 
'The' part of "The MOQ". I keep hearing Pirsig say "People should see 
that it’s never anything other than just one person talking from one 
place in time and space and circumstance" and to me the "The" (when 
taken as a non-rhetorical device) takes the emphasis away from that.

[Ant]
When Pirsig says "the MOQ states" he is using it instead of saying "I 
state" because it's less egotistical.

[Arlo]
Right, that's the figurative definition, the one that accepts the 
rhetorical device, and its (if it isn't painstakingly obvious) the one I 
think is more coherent. You can go back and re-read everything Pirsig 
had written and make this substitution without any loss of clarity. But 
its the definition that does NOT accept this as a mere rhetorical 
device, but instead defines "The MOQ" as something to-be-described, 
correctly or incorrectly, rather than as a description (by one person, 
at one point in time and space and circumstance) itself.

Its probably not worth belaboring this, but I will make one final 
comment. I think its also an 'itch' because in my reading of philosophy 
(which, admittedly, isn't thorough) I haven't yet seen any other "The" 
being such a central point of the dialogue (if a part at all). Sure, we 
read and talk about general umbrella categories (pragmatism, idealism, 
etc.) but you never read about "The Idealism" or "The Pragmatism". We 
read about Dewey's pragmatism, Peirce's pragmatism, even his 
pragmaticism, which is his 'brand', is never described as "The 
Pragmaticism". And while you may read "the Pragmaticism of Peirce", you 
wouldn't see readers of Peirce arguing about what "The Pragmaticism 
says". That sounds even odd to say outloud, doesn't it?

Even when I read something like "Pragmatism says" (without the "the") 
what's really being said is "within the philosophical dialogue, 
arguments that adhere to certain core similarities are categorized as 
pragmatic philosophies, and if you want your argument to be part of this 
domain, you need to adhere to certain foundations". And I have no 
problem extending the umbrella "MOQ" in this way, to say that what we 
mean by "MOQ" is a range of personal philosophies that adhere to some 
similar foundation or structure. This takes me back to juxtaposing 
Dewey's pragmatism and James' pragmatism with Pirsig's MOQ and Arlo's 
MOQ. In this regard, sure the overall field of "MOQism", like pragmatism 
or idealism, evolves as divergent and conflicting, or extending and 
elaborating, ideas from author's are presented under the umbrella.

And maybe this is what you meant by contrasting "a MOQ" with "The MOQ", 
where it would be the same as saying "Pragmatism (a MOQ) holds X and Y, 
while Dewey's pragmatism (The MOQ) contrasts with Peirce's pragmatism 
(???, see and this is where I think the terminology breaks down, what 
would you put here? If one is "The", what are the others?)."

Arlo