[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Arlo]
> Let me stop and ask, do you think there is 'one' MOQ, as evidenced by 
> the determinant 'the', or do you think there is/can be multiple MOQs?

[Craig, previously]
> I think there is a distinction between THE MoQ & AN MoQ.
> THE MoQ is the metaphysics which started with Pirsig (influenced by Eastern thought,
> Northrop, et al.) but has grown by additions of others' views, principles, reasoning, attitudes, etc.
> The MoQ has a central core about which there is a concensus.  Other parts are controversial & tentative.
> Some parts of the MoQ Pirsig might even disagree with. 
> AN MoQ is a particular metaphysics which sufficiently overlaps with THE MoQ & which does not deny the
> central core of THE MoQ.

> [Arlo]
> In this sense (if I understand) "The MOQ", despite the definitive 'the', 
> is an umbrella term akin to 'pragmatism', is that correct? Where the 
> general body of discourse has certain central premises, but the 
> pragmatism of any one author will vary to some degree, on some points, 
> to the pragmatism of any other author.

Don't let the surface syntax throw you off.  Instead of 'pragmatism', you could substitute
'THE philosophy of pragmatism' & now 'the MOQ' & ", despite the definitive 'the', 
> is an umbrella term akin to 'pragmatism', is that correct? Where the 
> general body of discourse has certain central premises, but the 
> pragmatism of any one author will vary to some degree, on some points, 
> to the pragmatism of any other author.

Don't let the surface syntax throw you off.  Instead of 'pragmatism' you could substitute
'THE philosophy of pragmatism' & now 'the philosophy of pragmatism' & 'the MOQ' are on equal footing
as umbrella terms.
When we say "The lion is king of the jungle", we don't have a definite particular lion in mind.

[Arlo]
> why would we not talk about Pirsig's MOQ and subsequently 
> Arlo's MOQ or Craig's MOQ or any other divergent-but-similar metaphysics 
> developed in this tradition?

Generalizations have their value.  Remember Pirsig's insight "that if you can't
generalize from the data, you can't do anything else with it either".
Take the generalization:
1) Dogs bark.
We could try to replace it with
2) Fido, Rex...bark & Spot,...doesn't bark.
But now if Spot barks or Rex stops barking, 2) is false but 1) isn't. 

[Craig]
The MoQ has a central core about which there is a concensus.  Other 
parts are controversial & tentative. Some parts of the MoQ Pirsig might 
even disagree with.

[Arlo]
> how do you define the 'central core'...how would you determine that?

The short answer is: usuage.  The same way you determine that one thing's a hill
& another a mountain.

[Arlo]
> if the 'central core' is adaptive and impermanent, then 
> what is a MOQ today may not be a MOQ tomorrow, and may be again at some 
> point in the future.

And if you're a philosopher, that's okay.
Let the philosophologists sort it out.
Craig