[MD] MOQ is good. What is it good for?

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[John M]
The MOQ isn't a living, dynamic entity.  It is a static intellectual pattern.  It was made at a point in time by one person, in the midst of his own unique circumstances.

[Arlo]
Just jumping in to address a couple points, John. In all philosophy (indeed, across all academic disciplines), there are (at least) two different ways of looking at ideas. First is the overall category, like "Idealism" or "Pragmatism". Second is a particular author's ideas, like "Hegel" or "James". People tend to use the phrase "The MOQ" interchangeable across these two, and that creates problems, such as "the MOQ isn't a living, dynamic entity". As for the latter, "what Pirsig said" (or "what Hegel said" or "what James said"), you are (mostly) correct. This is static. Unless those authors are still active, their ideas become static patterns within the larger intellectual level of value. But, as for the former, the more generalized 'tradition' (if you will), this is constantly evolving as new voices enter the dialogue, as ideas are refined, challenged, revisioned, elaborated, linked, uncoupled, etc. For example, Peirce broke from the general field of pragmatism (he even created his own label, pragmaticism). So within general discourse on "pragmatism", one distinguishes (when necessary) between the different voices, but recognizes that the overall theory moves forward (and sometimes this happens by rejecting certain voices as much as appropriating them). 

Personally, I try to use "Pirsig's MOQ" when talking, or thinking, about specifically what Pirsig wrote. But I use the more general "MOQ" to refer to the field, or category, of ideas is, or will, evolve within a larger, general tradition. So, yes, while one "was made at a point in time by one person", the other is a "living", evolving pattern of understandings that incorporates many voices. 

[John M]
But it doesn't fit mine, so I try to bend it into something I can use, and I get chastised by some in this forum for doing that. 

[Arlo]
The only time I've seen anyone "chastised" is when they erroneously attribute a position to Pirsig. For example, if I said "Pirsig's MOQ includes animal behavior on the social level", this would be wrong, and I'd imagine those familiar with Pirsig's writings would call me out on this mistake. But, I've said many times that I, personally, distance myself from this categorical mandate, and have never been chastised for this. But, I can, and have, made an argument that is within the larger, general tradition of a MOQ that preserves the structure even if it disagrees with certain details of Pirsig's personal ideas. 

Importantly, you have to understand what someone says before you can agree of disagree, or revise or extend, etc. Peirce had to understand exactly and precisely what James was saying in order for his "pragmaticism" to make any sense. When people get very sloppy about what Pirsig did, or did not, say, it hinders the way intellectual evolution works. So, if you "bend" Pirsig's ideas into something you can use, and think this would be of value to others, by all means share (and be prepared for evaluation). Just be clear in your thoughts in articulating; (1) this is what Pirsig said, (2) this is why he was wrong, (3) this other way of looking at it is better, (4) and here is why. (I should addend this by saying that if you're disagreement with Pirsig takes you so far away from a MOQ-discourse that you are really presenting a different metaphysical approach altogether, you'd really be better off taking your ideas to a more similar forum.)

[John]
So this is one of the key issues with the MOQ for me.  Pirsig avers that the four levels of the MOQ embrace all of evolution and of human experience.  Well, it deliberately (and I think arbitrarily) excludes the most significant dimension of my human experience! 

[Arlo]
Based on the preceding paragraph, I assume this "dimension" you refer to is "religion"? What Pirsig does is separate out a mystical awareness of Dynamic Quality (or the Buddha, or the Godhead), from the dogmatic, theistic narratives of religion. The latter becomes social patterns, but the former really is 'outside' the describable experiential landscape. It sounds like you want Pirsig to have included DQ within the four levels of his MOQ? 

[John]
But then came the MOQ.  It's brilliant and beautiful.  But it comes up short and says, "Your experience doesn't count.  It isn't valid, and there's no place for it in the MOQ."

[DMB]
The MOQ  says, "Your experience doesn't count.  It isn't valid, and there's no place for it in the MOQ" ?! Where did you get that idea? Nothing could be further from the truth. The MOQ absolutely does NOT say any such thing. Quite the opposite, in fact. 

[Arlo]
I agree with DMB, I do not think Pirsig's MOQ says "your experience doesn't count". Almost to the contrary, I'd argue he says "your experience is all there is". Everything in his described four levels is derivative to 'experience'. 

[John M]
But the MOQ is static, as Andre says. It is an intellectual pattern, and any attempt to update it or extend it or expand it is forbidden.

[Arlo]
Again, as I mention above, this is simply untrue. But, extension or expansion has to proceed with intellectual quality. Knowing precisely what was said is critical to articulating coherent disagreement. And while you should expect (and demand) evaluation of your ideas, if those ideas are rooted in misunderstanding, misattribution or misinformation (of Pirsig, or anyone else), then your thesis will be (rightly) rejected from the start. For example, take a look at both Granger's academic thesis on Pirsig and Dewey, and Crawford's "Shop Class as Soul Craft" (I'll avoid plugging people who are on-list this time around). Both form critical links between Pirsig's ideas and practice, as well as building a network from Pirsig to others working under different, but similar, larger umbrellas. One is aimed (mostly) at academics (theory/pedagogy), and the other is aimed (mostly) at laypeople (practice/education). Here are two, high-quality ways in which the overall idea of a metaphysics of Quality is evolving.

[DMB]
The MOQ is the launch pad from which I explore all kinds of things, forming an increasingly larger circle of understanding. It's a fun and relatively easy way to learn philosophy. Start with what you know and work your way outward from there. As far as I can tell, Pirsig, James and Dewey are still down the road waiting for everyone else to catch up.

[Arlo]
I've always thought it would be neat to see everyone's "concept map" of who is in their personal circles (or even specific books/articles). For example, I am now about halfway through Henry Miller's Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch, as recommended by Dan. As I read, its apparent why this would 'link' to Pirsig's writings, both in genre and perspective. I think Ant was making (is making? has made?) a library or "bookshelf" of works that would fit as, for lack of a better word, 'sympatico' with Pirsig's thesis. There are the obvious ones, of course (like Granger and Crawford), but ones like Big Sur by Miller would have flown completely outside of my radar had not Dan first recommended it. 

[John]
Please tell me, David, how you have used it.  What has it done, or what do you do with it to enhance your life?  To enhance anyone else's life? 

[Arlo]
What's been astounding to me is how coherent an skeletal structure Pirsig's MOQ is for organizing different areas of interest. I can move from discussion on "art" to "primate evolution" to "ISIS militants" and stay within a coherent structure or voice. Importantly for me, this also includes pedaogy, and I can move from Vygostsky's work in the 1920's and 1930's directly to "Common Core" without skipping a beat. Just as an aside, I am currently working on a presentation I'll be giving in the Spring called something like "If education is art, what can it learn from a Theatre of Cruelty" (working title), where Pirsig will provide a structure for bringing (primarily) Artaud, Foucault, Freire, and Deleuze to bear on educational practice here. But, I could envision a similar presentation in anthropology where Pirsig could provide a structure for bringing in Tomasello, Dusenberry (of course), Vygostky and Lewis-Williams (interesting ideas about cave paintings). In other words, Pirsig's MOQ provides a way for me to integrate, appreciate and understand (better) a wide-array of ideas (and authors/'artists') that I find, personally, highly valuable and interesting.