Steve to Andre: Where do you find this "true MOQ sense" of the word metaphysics?
Andre: Well Steve, to be pedantic, these were Bodvar’s words and I understand his words to mean that the description of reality given by Pirsig is the most accurate description possible without falling into SOM distinctions and arguments. As I quoted him (Bodvar), merely naming DQ does that make DQ any less real? Steve: Everything that Pirsig writes on the subject takes a particular metaphysics to be one possible intellectual construction among an infinite possibility for descriptions of Quality. In what sense is your idea of the "true MOQ sense" the true MOQ sense of what the "true MOQ" says? I can't tell what you could mean by this phrase and what you could mean by "the MOQ" if MOQ is not synonymous with the philosophy of Robert M Pirsig as outlined in Lila and ZAMM. Andre: Pirsig himself has stated that his philosophy (the MoQ) is more encompassing, inclusive and has far more explanatory power than everything that has gone before...i.e.SOM in all its variations and guises. Northrop continually criticises philosophies on the basis of confusing the’ ought’ with the’ is’. Most philosophies do not reflect what ‘is’ but the way things ‘ought to be’/ or ‘should be’ and upon this basis analyse ‘reality’ and project (future) ways of thinking and acting. (Marx’s dialectical materialism, based on Hegel, Fichte and its source, Kant is a [disastrous] case in point. Actually, the MoQ is the first metaphysics I have come across to reflect the ‘is’ as opposed to the ‘ought’. And in this sense I understand Pirsig’s own caution that his MoQ is not a quick fix programme that will solve all moral conflicts in this world overnight. It merely clarifies and orders Reality within a moral, evolutionary framework i.e. DQ/SQ. Steve: In the MOQ, "true statements about reality" are not to be confused with Quality itself and there is not just one true statement to be made about reality... Andre: Agree, all statements referring to the inorganic, organic, social and intellectual level are provisional. Steve: You've painted Bo as the true believer, as some sort of MOQ fundamentalist--an odd sort of fundamentalist who does not see the actual text of what Pirsig wrote in inventing his MOQ as having much to do with the MOQ--as if Bo is the one who is being the most faithful to Pirsig's MOQ while also claiming that Pirsig himself has the MOQ all wrong. This is absurd. Andre: Indeed I have painted Bodvar as a forceful, committed and passionate follower of Quality. The truth of his interpretation of the MoQ remains provisional. All I can gather from his arguments and evidence is that it makes sense. I would not claim, and doubt if Bodvar actually says this, that Pirsig has his own MoQ ‘all wrong’. What I do detect (and Bodvar has been at this much longer than I have) is that Pirsig’s statements are, at times, ambiguous ( which is okay) confusing ( which is sort of okay) and contradictory ( which is not very helpful...to wit: the intellectual level). And then, amongst others, Krimel comes along with his ideas about this level, John has other ideas, Bodvar has his ideas...it seems we all have our own ideas about this. The test is to match them against the words and consistency of Pirsig’s own arguments and definitions. And, to be fair, in the end we use our own experience of Quality as we integrate them within the static PoV’s we call our own, which leads to a further diversification and richness of everything else. Steve: What do you think it means to commit yourself to the MOQ? Andre: To change, in as many ways that I can experience, a SOM steeped past into a MoQ immersed now. Cheers, Andre Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
