[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[Andre]

Arlo to Craig:

Right, we have two opposing "descriptions of Quality". We have Pirsig's
description, and we have the other person's description. I'm not sure
what is problematic here, it is perfectly coherent to say "Pirsig's MOQ
and Arlo's MOQ vary on Point A".

The problem arises if the description becomes the thing-described. Then
the conflict becomes not over two competing descriptions, but who is
describing the description correctly.

Andre:
This is very clear Arlo and well put. My concern is exactly the way you 
state it, and leads to my question: Are we here to discuss Arlo's MOQ or 
to discuss Pirsig's MOQ?

In the past you have indicated that there are some issues regarding 
Pirsig's MOQ that you do not agree with. (If I understand it correctly 
about extending, or perhaps recognizing social patterns of quality at 
the organic level as displayed by certain animal species?).
That is fine. You are entitled to present that argument on this discuss 
but, to put a not too fine a point on it, may I say that, in some ways I 
am glad that you do not confront us daily, on this discuss, with this 
point of view pushing it and pushing it and in the process telling 
everyone that Pirsig is wrong about that with which you do not agree and 
suggest that Pirsig doesn't know what he's talking about as your 
experience/interpretation is different.

As you know, this point has been addressed by Pirsig in Annotn.5 of 
Lila's Child (which, I should add does not prevent us from discussing 
this in the light of this Annotation).

You may get a feel for what I am driving at. There are some here on this 
discus that do nothing else but drive home THEIR interpretation of 
Pirsig's MOQ and in the process blur, mutilate and distort it, (Marsha 
and Mark being obvious examples and Tuuka now wanting to go in conclave 
with Pirsig so they can together improve on Pirsig's MOQ as perceived by 
aforementioned!!!).

It reminds me of the postmodernist argument which suggests that the 
meaning of a piece of art does not lie in the artwork itself (in this 
case Pirsig's MOQ) nor in the comments and clarifications given by the 
artist(in Pirsig's case in the form of interviews, papers, DVD's, 
Annotations, correspondences... what have you). No, it lies fairly in 
the hands of the reader, the critic, the observer, the interpreter. The 
audience!

Gone is the artist! And, if not altogether gone, severely criticized for 
not understanding his own artwork properly. Some even suggesting he 
should never have written LILA. And, in relation to Pirsig's MOQ here on 
this discuss at present: enter the Marsha's, the Mark's, the Tuuka's 
through who's interpretation the artwork is actually (re)created AS IT 
REALLY SHOULD BE!

I am not suggesting that no one is entitled NOT to have their version of 
an moQ. But I am not interested in discussing Marsha's or Mark's or for 
that matter Tuuka's moQ. I am interested in discussing Pirsig's MOQ. Of 
course we can disagree saying, hello, this does not line up with my 
experience in relation to what Pirsig argues, I need clarification here. 
So then I'd rather be pointed out where my experience is possibly wrong 
or mistaken IN RELATION TO PIRSIG'S MOQ and why. And I believe it is 
reasonable to expect from me a more substantial argument than: "well 
it's MY experience", it's my interpretation and that is the only one 
that counts!

(How dare you ascribe this MOQ to a person who has been locked up for 
insanity? How dare you say it is Pirsig's? It's MINE, I create it with 
my own experience. Aren't I brilliant? I know much better than the 
artist ever will. He's just a silly old whimp! I! ME! MINE! Look and 
listen to me being so wonderfully witty and brilliant! On and on goes 
the narcissistic ego condemning every interpretation commensurate with 
the original piece of art and criticizing their own as 'mere opinion'! 
Boy, oh boy, oh boy. Boomeritis to the hilt!)

I think it is also reasonable to expect that these clarifications are 
taken on board, are heeded and integrated in my 'revised' understanding 
from that point onward and not thrown aside as being mere 'opinions' so 
I can keep on ramming MY interpretation down everyone's throat (despite 
obvious conflicts with the fundamentals of Pirsig's MOQ)

I'd rather have that than having to put up with what variously has been 
termed 'drivel'. I repeat: I would like to discuss Pirsig's MOQ here and 
not the moQ's of five hundred others. I do that off-line with people I 
meet, hope to meet, and others I know in my daily life.

If this is NOT what we are here to do then perhaps this is not the site 
for me.

Anyway, good to hear from you again Arlo.