[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Craig]
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.

[Arlo]
Fair enough. I'm not sure I see the emphasis, though, in these other discourse
communities as to what "The Philosophy of Pragmatism" says, as much as I hear
(de)(re)constructions of authors' ideas. Peirce, for example, doesn't seem to
care to construct an argument as to what "Pragmatism says", as much as he cared
to construct an argument as to what "Peirce says". This higher level narrative
only seems to matter in a broad categorizing sense ("Was Peirce a
pragmatist?"), where you are explicitly saying "this, and only this, is what
you must meet to be considered a pragmatist".

So, to use your example, we'd have to interpret "The MOQ says" as "This is the
barest minimum required to have your philosophy considered a MOQ", or "This is
a central premise of a MOQ". Is that right?

[Craig]
When we say "The lion is king of the jungle", we don't have a definite
particular lion in mind.

[Arlo]
No, but that's only because there is no one in the conversation disputing what
a "lion" is. If I keep insisting that that 'monkey' over there is, in fact, a
lion, while you keep insisting it is not, who validates your statement?

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

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

[Arlo]
Interesting example, because that usage is entirely situated culturally and
historically. What is a "hill" here in central PA may be a "mountain" to folk
in Iowa, and I can imagine some languacultures may not even differentiate these
at all. And I'd agree with this. 

The question, then, becomes on looking at how, in certain cultural-historical
areas, 'usage' manifests (and is resisted). In the West, we talk often of
'rationality', intellectual evaluations of ideas, that (at least should)
determine the adoption and diffusion of ideas (aka, "use"). But is this an
'ideal'? 

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

[Arlo]
Good sentiment. This is why I've never been concerned with demanding my ideas
are "the MOQ", they are just my ideas, for good or bad, and that's good enough
for me. I'm content to say "Pirsig says" and "Arlo says" and not demand or
worry about a label or terminological legitimacy.