[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[david buchanan]

Ham said to Anthony:
.., what defines a philosophy is the ontology on which it is structured and which gives it meaning both within and outside of the definable (empirical) realm. ...Basically, a philosophy is a particular conception of reality that can be comprehended in terms of its own epistemology and ontological paradigm.  It must satisfactorily answer the question 'What is?' as well as provide an explanation for creation and causal process in time and space.  It must also account for the conscious subject and its relation to the cosmos.


... In my opinion, the MOQ as currently presented is bereft of ontology altogether, as is evidenced by confusion over the existence of the conscious self and the meaning of "static" and "dynamic" as related to Quality.  A hierarchy of moral levels based on a human precept of evolution does not constitute a philosophy, let alone a metaphysical theory.   ....I believe much more could have been postulated on the Value premise had the author been willing to develop a formal ontology in the classic tradition. 




dmb says:
Again, Ham, you're unfairly blaming Pirsig. Rather than conclude that the MOQ does not provide an adequate explanation, you might want to consider the possibility that you do not understand those explanations. 
Short answer to the ontology question: reality is experience and experience is reality. Period. As James's title puts it so succinctly, we're talking about "a world of pure experience". Dynamic Quality is experience itself, it is the primary empirical reality, the pre-intellectual cutting edge of experience. You don't know it in the conceptual sense but you know it directly and immediately, as if by actual contact. Any ontology beyond that (substances, essences, whatever) is considered to be an intellectual static pattern, a secondary CONCEPT about reality. Such philosophical posits should never be mistaken for reality itself, should only be treated as a hypothesis to be tested by further experience.
Short answer to the epistemology question: The MOQ subscribes to radical empiricism (above) and the pragmatic theory of truth fits so neatly within this world of pure experience that it's like a special chapter within the same book. This theory of truth says that the point and purpose of ideas is to guide our experience, they are derived from experience and are tested in experience. Truth as intellectual quality means that the idea first and foremost has to agree with experience (reality), but of course it also has to make sense, i.e. it has to be clear, coherent, logically sound and as brief as possible. 

William James helps to clarify and elaborate the MOQ but he doesn't fill in any gaps in Pirsig's work. It would be the other way around. Pirsig's DQ supplies a very key element that James never developed. As far the qualitative aspect of immediate experience goes, John Dewey was closer than James.